partners to do that, whether iran is prepared to chart a pathway that looks like that, we will only know once we engage in discussions. >> many members look forward to working with you to make sure we are restraining iran's nuclear ambitions effectively and that we are implementing what we get out of that current agreement and reviewing it closely. [crowd noise]

>> yeah. >> a call to order and we are going to begin with senator booker. senator rish began having a conflict. that, will turn to one of >> i think it is a testimony to your ticket that even in-laws have stuck through

this which is something you rarely see. i want to follow-up up on a few points of testimony and i had to leave for two other committees that were meeting at the same time. folks want to get back to some of the issues getting back to many of the things we discussed. , do you know what usa engaged is? mr. tillerson: it is not ring a bell with me. sen. booker: the u.s. engages and you industry lobbying group for oil companies that there is a lot of lobbying. in fact, they worked very hard on lobbying against a lot of u.s. sanctions that were in place and you don't know of exxon mobil is a member of usa engage in pays into that group

for lobbying purposes? mr. tillerson: i do not know. senator booker bang -- sen. booker: would you be up to find that out for me? mr. tillerson: you might want to put the question out to exxon mobil. sen. booker: thank you very much . i want to follow up on -- you characterize some of the obama administration and foreign policy as weakness, that we did not show strength around the globe. isn't that strength. mr. tillerson: i think it is an absence of asserting our leadership. sen. booker: our response to russian aggression was one of those indicators of that weakness, is that correct? >> that is my opinion. it is seen in the testimony that you were saying that such an aggression should be met with a

proportional response that we did not show. >> i don't think that is exactly the way i stated it. what i indicated in terms of the -- mytep was my view predictability comment that russia is not unpredictable. when their spots to the taking a crimea was met with response that was less than i suspect of a leadership of russia the they would encounter, then the next move was logical to come across the eastern border of ukraine because it was well known that there were elements in eastern ukraine that were sympathetic to russia interest. case asmight be a crimea entered into eastern ukraine that this is a sign of weakness because we do not respond in a way that would deter further actions.

>> working with allies in the region and working with the government and he have both -- and p.m. both. >> put together with the europeans a way of sanctioning them economically, but that was not sufficient in your mind to stop them from their aggressions. >> i think you're on to a very important point around sanctions. there has been a lot of questions about sanctions. it is good to clarify my view. sanctions are a very powerful tool. they can be used into circumstances. one is to punish someone for what they have already done. the other is to intervene and caused them not to do certain things. in this case, clearly the sections that were put in place in response to crimea did not deter them from entering.

>> is it your opinion that our sections should of been much more severe? do you think in that case it should of been a match of equal force? another worst military action? >> in that situation, given the dramatic taking of crimea, that was a dramatic action, sections were going to be insufficient to deter the russian leadership from taking the next step. >> you think there should be military force than? your opinion is it should've been a military force? >> my opinion is there should've been a military response in a defensive posture. that itthe message stops here. view were noty going to be adequate to deter that. that is my opinion.

we will never know. you understand that if you yourself in a defensive posture, there an old saying that if you pull a gun you should be prepared to use it and that could escalate into a conflict. you are going to be making decisions on whether we should commit american troops, european troops. if there is a military spots, it would have to come from some place else. do you understand that that seems to be your advocating for greater u.s. use of military power and conflicts like the one we saw in ukraine. >> i am advocating for responses that will deter and prevent a further expansion of a bad actors behavior. i would not in any way want anyone to take away the thought that i would recommend that is the first action and again in any decision to respond with a show of force, that would be taken within the national

security council and be fully informed by others including the department of defense and intelligence agencies as to whether that would in fact be executed upon and be effective. looking at your other options as well. i'm not dismissive of the sanctions. what you did characterize the obama's administration action as weakness although you say you would not do something difference -- something different. >> in that case i would've done something different. it sure force at the border of the country which had already had -- which had already area taken from them. if that is not seen across the border, then it is not a show of force. visit valley of transparency in government, correct?

and accountability? >> yes. >> i have a concern. companyder of a private , you made it clear in many ways that you were first accountable to shareholders, employees and customers. s secretary of state, your accountable to the american public. and you would be expected to keep the media and public informed of the general activities. i know that will my staff did a rough peculation of past secretaries, clinton had over 3200 in her for years. 4000.erry had at exxon mobil, it was a much smaller number. you believe in the importance of transparency of engaging with the public of answering to the questions that come from the media.

. >> that is a part of earning other trust is to engage with this committee and that is a way to communicate with the public as well. rex you'll bring press corps -- >> you'll bring press corps with you as you travel overseas? >> it confirmed, i will look into what would be appropriate. i have not gotten that far in my thinking. >> you haven't thought through issues of accountability. -- >>r question was about my question was access to the media and public. >> we want to ensure that the secretary state is fully transparent with the public. that is a part of my comment of being truthful and holding ourselves accountable.

gears and i will get back to this. i am going to yield back as this is a of questions. , it is a matter of sharing some information. supportlying of defense to ukraine at a time when we were only sending used night wason goggles and mrnas something that was strongly ,upported and a bipartisan way on this committee, under chairman menendez's leadership, i just want to say that for the record, so i didn't view the response to be necessarily in any way outside the norms of what this committee overwhelmingly supported at that time. i'm just saying that for information.

and i'm more than glad it talk more fully on that. and if senator risk comes in, i would like to give him time since he was around earlier and has a conflict. with that, i will turn to senator carden again. >> once again, thank you, mr. chairman. in response to senator menendez's questions in regards to lobbying the iran sanctions act just to make the record complete, i would ask consent to put into the record the lobbying disclosure form from exxonmobil corporation that indicates that approximately $3.4 million in lobbying in the iran sanctions act. i will put that into the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> i wanted to be chairman. >> i understand you became chairman while i was talking.

>> second thing, mr. tillerson. i want to underscore a point, we talk about the offices, coming up several times, that is you keep referring to the fact of your concern in regards to the ukrainian sanctions that were posed against russia. for their actions in ukraine. that you were concerned that american companies could be at a disadvantage because of europe being treated differently. grandfather's clause, et cetera. then we talk about leadership and it was very true on iran and senator menendez took the leadership on this, that but for the u.s. leadership, we wouldn't have gotten other countries to act. so if we take the position we are going to the lowest common

denominator, we're not going to get anything really done. you talk about being tough and tough positions and leadership and requires us to be willing to go the extra amount. and one last point on this and i agree with senator corker, we've never had any administration believe that congress just take away their discretion. fact.s absolutely a they just assume do away with congress. we understand that. we get it. but you, i assume, understand the advantage we have in america with the separation of branches of government. and it can be helpful for you, if you are confirmed as our principal negotiator, that you must impose sanctions, must impose sanctions, unless you get real progress toward the issues --which those sanctions in

sanctions will be imposed. take advantage of the independent branch of government. work with us so you can have those strong tools. i will take most of my time on this round to go over the issue senator corker and i have been working through. i won't go over time with the issues on tax returns. and we will save that for a different time for our committee because it involves an internal debate here more so than our nominee. as a result, i sent to you 20 questions to answer that are related to the tax issues because we didn't have the tax returns. and before the close of business for asking questions, i will be proposing questions to you related to your tax issues in order to better understand areas that i think we need to have information on. we are concerned about the fact

fact. i am concerned. i think members of the committee are concerned, that you will have private interest, continuing to operate a farm. have a charitable foundation. a real estate firm. a real estate partnership. we need to know a little bit more how that operates from the person who is secretary of state. you have trusts set up. how those payments are paid out over time, we need to have a better understanding of how that operates during the term if you're confirmed as secretary of state. so that type of information is useful to us. i'm still trying to figure out exactly how this trust that you're taking, restricted stock, and if confirmed, selling it to become, or putting cash in rather than restricted stock, but then you are able to withdraw the fund from the trust

in the same schedule as i believe as the restricted stock would have become actionable but as a result of that, you're also putting contingencies on your receipt and as i understand deferring taxes for a significant amount of time. these are issues i think we need more transparency on. they are big dollars. $180 million, if i understand, in restricted stock. tax consequences about $70 million. these are not types of tools that can be used by average americans. i think we need to know more about those types of issues. we also have concern about making sure that all of your employees have been properly documented and taxes paid. that's a standard issue that been raised now in confirmation hearings. and senator corker and i may not think it is relevant to the final confirmations -- shouldn't say relevant. determinative of a final

confirmation but certainly relevant for us to have that information before we make those answers. so mr. tillerson, i'm going to ask you to answer these questions for the record. i hope we can get the cooperation in a timely way so the committee can have the information before we are called it act on your nomination. you can respond. >> i'm happy to try to answer the areas of concern you have. i indicated that in the original questionnaire, that it is my objective to address concerns you have. i am -- i'm also though mindful of privacy issues that are afforded to every american and private issues under individual tax returns. i will do my best to answer the questions that you have. but i hope you will also respect the privacy of myself and my family and the long standing tradition of the privacy of

individual's tax returns. >> and i can assure you that that will absolutely be observed , as i had explained to senator corker much of this information is not even reviewed by members. strictly by people who can tell us whether we have a problem or not. i absolutely respect what you're saying. and my full intentions are to fully maintain your legitimate right of privacy. i look forward to following up on that and thank you for your reply. >> thank you. just for the edification of the committee, i think that it's true that over the last four years, i have worked to insure we move candidates out as quickly as possible, nominees. i think at every nomination meeting we've had, that's been stated. and what i've chaired with ranking member is we have tradition here that we are following.

this has not been a committee that asked for a tax returns, asked for disclosure form. and just because we were so overwhelmingly helpful with a democratic president's nominees, doesn't mean that we want to be changing the standards or unhelpful, if you will, mr. -- you will, under a republican nominee. so i just have tried to keep things exactly the same. exactly the same. disclosures are exactly the same. and you know, as far as getting into -- i've told senator cardin, that if there is a substantial issue that we need to look that would affect senator tillerson -- excuse me. you don't want to be demoted to that. [laughter] >> nominee tillerson's role and to go outside to do

so, but to get to silly questions have you done that, that's not what we've done in this committee. i hope we will not turn this process into a process that turns qualified people away from wanting to serve. so if we need an accounting firm that it really matters to his ability to not have conflicts as secretary of state, i'm willing to look at it as i know he is. asking questions that, you know, are not in any way determinative in that manner to me is belittling the committee and certainly a huge change in the protocol and the respect with which we have dealt with nominee s and their privacy in the past. but thank you for working for me. >> if you will just yield for

one moment and i thank you for are that, and the disagreement on supplying tax returns has nothing to do with mr. tillerson. it is a discussion we are having and has not at all deplayed any of our operations and i fully expect that i will continue to use whatever means i can to change our committee practices so that we do have our nominees, as many other committees in the senate require, to file tax returns. that's not unique. small business i'm told by senator shaheen. but a second one, i will make very quickly, is that the second point, the ability of members to ask questions for the record, and ask questions of the nominee has pretty well been a respected. and i would hope that right not be diminished, in asking questions in the areas in regards to what we feel is important. >> no one is trying to dimin

-- trying to diminish that. i know you and i have agreed on a series of questions that will the committee itself and mr. tillerson, as i understand it, will answer those. i understand absolutely the arrangement he has with exxon is something that should be fully vetted and everyone here understands that that is going to happen and he will make that forth and has actually. i would just say, again, we may wish to change our standards for four years from now. our most recent secretary of state, as i understand it, as a couple is worth over $1 billion. and all kind of far ranging investments. and as a committee, we never tried to force a tax return issue. they filled out disclosures. we as a committee ask them questions. same thing happened with

secretary clinton. all i'm trying to do is not in any way change the way we operate because of the outcome of an election. and continue to be again that island of bipartisan ship where we continue to operate regardless of who wins an election in the same manner. i'm in no way trying to infer that you're attempting to do that. i'm just telling you what i'm attempt doing. with that, if we can close this matter out, i will turn to senator rubio. >> thank you. mr. tillerson when we met monday , night, and thank you for coming by, i provided with you a bill provided in last congress, which i anticipate will be filed in this congress, which would remove the travel ban to cuba by americans. if you were confirmed and that bill passed congress, can you commit you would advise the president to veto that bill? >> senator, as to the current

status of travel to cuba, that is going to be under discussion with president-elect. i think he has been clear on his intent that he is going to ask all agencies on day one to do a complete review of recent executive orders in the change of status of travel to cuba as well as business activities in cuba. that would be my expectation that the president would not immediately approve that bill until of that review had occurred. because that would be part afterof a broader view of our posture towards cuba. >> again, if he doesn't act on the bill, it would become law without signature. at this time you can't commit to supporting a vietnama of that veto of that law should it pass. >> i would approve a veto because i don't think that is -- >> if a bill were to pass congress that would remove the u.s. embargo against cubo and

-- against cuba and there aren't democratic changes on the eye -- of cuba. would you advise the president to veto the bill lifting embargo on cuba? >> if confirmed, yes, i would. >> can you also commit that would you advise the president to reverse many, if not all, of the obama administrations cuba regulation answers executive orders regarding cuba that were recently submitted in 2014? >> as indicated, i expect a comprehensive review of the executive orders and from the state department perspective would want to examine the criteria for which cuba was delisted for nations that support terrorism. and whether or not that delisting was appropriate and whether or not the circumstances which led to that delisting still exist. >> you do not currently have an opinion as to whether cuba is on the list of terrorism. >> i would need to examine all of the criteria that were used

to make the current determination and then utilize the expertise of those in the state department to get informed by the inner agency process that would look at putting cuba back on that list. >> as you're aware there is a dispute between china and japan over the sinkaku island. if china would attempt to take over the island chain and use military force, would you support the united states responding with military force to prevent that from happening? >> we have long standing ally commitments with japan and south korea and in the area. we would respond with those accords that are not a nato type have in been be accordance with the alliance we have with japan.

>> in the database by the executive commission on china containing more than 1400 active records of individuals known to be in detention. do you believe china is one of the world's worst human rights violators? >> china has serious human rights violations relative to categorizing against other nations, i would have to have more information but they have serious human rights violations. >> since president dueterterte e took officedutert last june, roughly 6200 have been killed in the philippines by police and vigilantes and alleged trug raid. in your view is this the right way to conduct an anti-drug campaign? >> senator, the u.s. america and people of the philippines he have a long standing friendship. i think it is important that we keep that in perspective, that long standing friendship.

they have been an ally. we need to be sure they stay an ally. >> that's correct. but my question is about the 6200 people that are killed under the alleged drug raids. do you believe that's an appropriate way to conduct that operation? or do you believe that it is something that's conducive to human rights violations that we should be concerned about and condemning? senator -- >> senator, confirmed again, it is an area i want to understand in greater detail because of the fact on the ground. i'm not disputing anything you are saying, i know you have access to information that i do not have. >> this is the los angeles times. >> i'm not going to go through the newspapers. i will rely on our government agencies. >> one of the sources is president duterte himself openly brags about the open shot and killed on the streets who he has determined are drug dealers without any trial. so if in fact he continues to brag about it, is that reliable

information you would look at and say ok, it's happening. what is happening in the philippines is not an intelligence issue, it is openly reported. president-elect has spoken about it and quite frankly the president of the philippines admitted to it and in fact brags about it. my question is that in your opinion an appropriate way for him to act and should it inflew -- should influence our relationship with the philippines. >> if the fact are supportive of those numbers and actions then i don't think any of us would accept that as a proper way to deal with offenders, no matter how egregious the offenders may be. >> i'm sure you're aware of the lack of religious freedoms and lack of rights of women in saudi arabia. in your opinion is saudi arabia a human rights violator? >> saudi arabia does not share the same values of america. however, american interests have been advocating in saudi arabia

for some time. i think the question is what the pace of progress to be expected for the king of saudi arabia to advance rights to women and others in the country. >> as it currently stand, do you consider what they do to be human rights violations? >> i would need to have greater information, senator, in order to make a true determination of that. >> you're not familiar with the state of affairs for people in saudi arabia, what life is like for women? they can't drive. people jailed and lashed. you are familiar with all of that? >> yes, senator, i'm familiar with all of that. >> so what more information would you need? >> in terms of, when you designate someone or label someone, the question is, is that the most effective way to have progress continue to be made in saudi arabia? or any other country. so my interest is the same as yours. our interests are not different, senator. there seems to be some misunderstanding that somehow i

see the world through a different lens. and i do not. i share all of the same values that you share and want the same things for people the world over in terms of freedoms. but i'm also clear-eyed and realistic about dealing in cultures. these are centuries-long cultures, of cultural differences. it doesn't mean we can't affect them and affect them to change. over many years we've been traveling to the kingdom, while the pace is slow, slower than any of us wish, there is a change under way in the kingdom of saudi arabia. how and if they ever arrive to the same value system that we have, i can't predict that. however it is moving in the direction we want it to move. what i wouldn't want it to do is take some kind of action that suddenly causes the leadership, the king of saudi arabia, to have to interrupt that. i would like for them to continue to make that progress. >> thank you. >> senator menendez.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. tillerson, i know you are new to this and i know the chairmen are trying to help you out on the question of lobbying on sanctions. you stated on the record that to your knowledge neither you nor exxon ever lobbied against sanctions that you were merely seeking information. i have four different reports totaling millions of dollars as required by the lobbying disclosure act that lists exxonmobil lobbying activity on four specific pieces of legislation authorizing sanctions, including comprehensive iran sanks sanctions, accountability and investment act of 2010, prevention act of 2014, ukraine freedom act and stand for ukraine act. i know you are new to this but it is clear, my understanding is when you employ lobbyists who submit lobby under the law, you

are taking a position, is it that correct? >> if the form clearly indicates whether we were -- i don't know, i haven't seen the form have you in your hand, were you lobbying for or against sanctions? >> i know you were lobbying for sanctions. >> well if the form -- >> it says specifically, specific lobbying, provisions related energy. you weren't lobbying for sanctions on energy, were you? >> i think that's a description of the subject discussed. i haven't seen the form, senator, so i don't -- edify for the future. you don't need a form to simply seek information and clarification about a bill. that's not lobbying. lobbying specifically is to promote a view, position and what not. i have asked to have these included in the record. >> without objection. >> there is lobbying here. i know senator booker asked you

about usa engagement which you say you don't know about, but this whole purpose and i'm sure while exxon is a huge corporation like the state department is a very big entity , that you may not know every , --te ship what is going on ia that is going on, but you have to understand you are giving direction on whether or not you want to lobby on certain issues or take positions on certain issues or not. just like you told me earlier in your world conversation with the president-elect you didn't discuss russia. it is difficult to think you actually don't know that exxon was lobbying on the issues of sanctions. >> my understanding is those reports are required whether you are lobbying for or against something. you are still required to report you are lobbying. >> you believe you paid moneys to lobby for sanctions? >> i don't know. all i know senator is i don't -- >> can you imagine being in a position in which you had your company paying more for lobby

sanctions that would affect your bottom line? >> i don't know, depend on the circumstance. >> all right, let's talk about mexico. some of us care about the western hemisphere. any money spent on the great wall will be paid by mexico. mr. tillerson, building a wall on the southern border and having mexico pay for it has been a hallmark chant at trump rallies. now saying the american people will pay for it and mexicans will reimburse us. i want to point out the last time a country tried to wall itself completely from its neighbor was in berlin in 1861 and that wall was constructed by communist east germany. it was tweeted and it seems that's how we conduct foreign policy by tweet these days that trump may ask whoever he wants but still neither myself more

nor mexico will pay for it. he can't keep his promises, closed quotes. the president-elect has come -- has referred to mexican citizens who have come to the united states as saying they are sending quote people that have lots of problems and they are bringing those problems with us. bringing drugs, crime, rapists and in some, some i assume are good people. so mr. tillerson, do you think mexicans are criminals, drug dealers, rapists. ani would never characterize entire population of people as anything at all. >> do you think the trading in $583 million in trade and services including second goods export market. >> mexico is a long standing friend and neighbor of this country. >> so that doesn't help your job as a secretary of state, does it? if you are to achieve

nomination? >> well, we are going to engage with mexico because of their importance to us in this hemisphere and we have many, many common issues, common areas of concern. >> let me turn to another part of the western hemisphere. senator rubio mentioned it so he took care of some things i cared about. you needed more time on cuba which is fair. and the u.s.cubbian policy with -- the u.s.-cuban policy with the obama changes. the latest report by, not me, but by amnesty international, quote, despite increasingly open diplomatic relations, severe restrictions on freedom of expression and movement continuing, thousands of cases of harassment of government critics and arbitrary arrest and detentions were reported. thousands, that's their quote. the human rights and national reconciliation which works

within cuba, documented more than 8,600 politically motivated detentions of government opponents and activists during the year. there's a group of women who march every sunday to church. the women in white. they get beaten savagely. simply because of their peaceful protests. i would hope would you agree with me that if our engagement is still going to allow that to take place, then something is wrong with our engagement. something fell short. i have a specific question on cuba. do you think that as a condition of establishing diplomatic relations with cuba we should have insisted on the return of fugitives, cop killers, like new jersey cop killer joanne chesimar and others harbored by the castro regime. >> i do, senator. >> thank you, very much. now would you finally commit yourself, if you are confirmed as secretary of state, to work with us and others, mexico and

others, have cop-killers and other fugitives in cuba to make that conditioning of any future transactions as it relates it cuba? >> senator, if confirmed, i look forward to working with you most specifically as well as senator rubio and others that i know have a great depth of knowledge on cuba to ensure we are not relaxing the pressure on cuba to reform its oppressive regime and certainly, as i indicated in the response earlier and in my opening remarks, cuban leadership got a lot out of most recent deal. we need to make no mistake about where the flow of funds are going inside cuba. and cuban people got almost nothing. the president-elect has been very clear on his intent to direct a bottoms up review of the entire relationship with cuba. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the great senator from new jersey acknowledging that when our nominee left an impression that i don't think he is wishing to leave that i need to change

that. thank you. and with that, senator rish -- >> thank you. >> senator rish has a 10-minute segment because he missed first round. thank you for being here. >> thank you. i won't take that full 10 minutes. mr. tillerson, thank you for your willingness to do this. you will be hitting the ground at a very difficult time as far as u.s. relationships around the world. they have spiraled out of control from time to time and we are not in a good place in many parts of the world, primarily because of u.s. policy. and it is going to be rethought and redeveloped and i thank you for willing to take -- for willingness to take that on. i was struck when you were named that this is something that has been a bit off of the radar screen of most americans and

that is the importance of the work that the state department does in dealing with our companies and with commerce in foreign countries. most americans don't realize how difficult it is to do business overseas. and the state department really needs to focus on that more than what they have, and be helpful to countries that do want to do business overseas because it is a lot of times it has to go through a government sources to get into business over there. so i was impressed with that. and having your business background that you do, i think you are very helpful in that regard and helping the state department further understand its responsibilities in that regard. and state department does a good job. every one of us have traveled overseas. and sometimes in bipartisan fashion, isn't that right, senator shaheen? and we are always treated, regardless of the political

party, so well by our people in the state department people working here. we have talked a lot, russia's got a lot of play in this meeting, but we haven't talked much about iran and north korea. those are a couple of real challenges for us. and those -- those policies, as far as those two countries are concerned, really need to be rethought and recalibrated and then reannounced in a way that they understand what america will do. where we are coming from and what we do. i think that -- in talking with people, our allies, they are confused with where we want to go with this and what we will do. same is try with isis. how we handle that situation. where we are operating with iraq and syria.

i am not going to press you on those, because you are just getting your feet on the ground and i hope the president-elect will be after you're able to get your arms around these things, he will listen to you carefully as to the policies we're going to develop for that. policies need to be entirely different than what they are. that part of the world, the sipping tea and singing kumbaya is not a way you will be successful in a lot of those countries. they understand strength. not necessarily the use of strength. but they understand people who possess strength and people who they are convinced will use that strength if necessary. they need to be convinced of that. i know there is a lot of people complaining about the relationship between mr. -- between mr. putin and the president-elect and for that the matter yourself and mr. putin. i hope mr. putin gets to know both of you guys really, really well. because i think he will be

convinced that you do project american strength and that america still has the muscle that it's had and we still stand for what we stand for and we're going to project that around the world. so in that regard i really hope that mr. putin does have a relationship to where he gets to know both of you guys and especially the president-elect , because i think that that will impress him that he is not going to be able to get away with the kind of stuff he has gotten away with in the crimea or in syria or in other places where thief -- where they have been meddling in the world where they shouldn't be. finally, let me say, again, thank you for your willingness to do this. i've been impressed as we've been sitting here. the meeting in my office is very good. we are able to develop these thought more deeply than we can here. and i want to say that i've been really impressed having come

from a private sector background myself, it's difficult for people to understand that the transition from the private sector and business into the world of the diplomacy is very different. it's a transition that need to be made. and just sitting here listening to you over the hours that you have been here, i've been very impressed you make that decision. you are speaking in terms that diplomat understand. i appreciate that. it will serve you well as you go forward. thank you for your willingness to do that. with that, i yield back the time. >> thank you. this is the last person of the first round. so well get back into the sync we were in before. senator johnson. >> hey, mr. chairman. mr. tillerson, i want to go back before the responsibilities that

secretary gates laid out for secretary of state. advise the president, negotiate agreements, represent us abroad and lead the state department. i met you the morning i returned from my trip to israel which is a couple days before, the way i would term in, the u.s. shameful abstention on the vote on settlements. i've never understood why any administration, we have done this on a bipartisan fashion, would force a friend he, an ally, to sit down and negotiate with, i guess negotiating partners, that refuse to acknowledge the right to exist. that is table stakes. you know, in business, it is sitting down and forcing negotiation to buy a company somebody doesn't want to sell it. do you have a similar type of view on that in and agree with you that that complicates the future negotiation on that. >> i do have a view on it, senator. thank you. it would be akin, in many respects, negotiating with someone who denies your right to exist, why would they ever live up to any agreement if they don't expect you to be around. then to force one party to the

table through coercion or however you want it describe, the most recent resolution, is not useful. there have been many opportunity -- many opportunities since for parties to sit down and work things out. leadership certainly has not seized those opportunity. i would say in the case of the palestinian leadership while they have renounced violence, it is one thing to renounce it and another to take concrete action to prevent it. i think until there is a serious demonstration on their part, they are willing to do more than just renounce violence. they are willing to do something to at least interrupt it or interfere with it. it is very difficult to create conditions at the table for parties to have any productive discussion around settlement. >> do you agree that israel conceded just about every point and at this point in time

, palestinians refuse it say yes? >> i think that there have been many, many opportunity again for progress to be made and those have never been seized upon. so i do think it is a matter to be discussed and decided between the two parties to the extent america's foreign policy engagement can create a more fruitful environment for those discussions than i think that's the role we can play. with the end of it, this has to be settled between these two parties. >> policies should help strengthen our friend. in terms of negotiating the agreements, advising the president, i think congress has willingly given away its advice consent power. most famously recently is the iranian agreement. you look at the federal or foreign affairs manual, i think clearly, that iranian agreement was a treaty. i think had we honestly upheld our oath office, that vote on my amendment, the trooet should have have been 100-1.

first starting with jealously guarding our power and advice and consent, first of all, do you believe that's a treaty? >> it would have the appear uns of a treaty and look likes a treaty. >> what about the paris climate accord which commit us to a fair amount of -- do you believe that's an executive order that can enter onity own? >> it looks like a treaty. >> will you work with us and advise the president as you negotiate for this nation to

respect the constitution and come to senate for advice consent on treaties? >> senator, i respect the proper roles of both branches of government and in my could be ver conversation with the president-elect, he does as well and he expressed the same views. under the past administration the executive branch has gone pret pretty far out there in terms of recognizing the proper role of cop gres asngress as a body to express its own view on some of these agreements. >> leading the state department, you have successfully managed employees, with the employees of the same mission statement and roles to achieve the goals, they are supportive of the goals of the ogrganization. you will assume the leadership after department that, lets face it, you have entrenched bureaucrats that are not only don't necessarily agree with your foreign policy or the next administration's foreign policy might be hostile to it. as an experienced manager, how do you deal with that? >> you're right. the state department about 70,000 employees, interestingly about the same size as the organization i led when ways a the exxonmobil. about 40,000 of those state department employees are

deployed overseas. about 60% of exxonmobil employees are not americans. in terms of understanding and dealing with people who are representing you around the world, and they are half way around the world, in various embassies and missions, how do you get all of these people aligned with one objective. and the objective is america's interest and america's national security. so i think that part of leadership is expressing very clear views and part of leadership is having an organization that has a clear line of sight on issues as to who owns these and whole be held -- and who will be held accountable for them, and having an organization that is all working in concert towards that objective. my experience has been that people look for leadership. when they are acting in ways contrary to the overall mission, it is generally because there is an absence of strong leadership to clearly define to them what

that expectation is and what their role in it is. then reward people who are behaving in a way that support the overall mission and not support their own agenda. i have used the term many times in large organizations of working in the general interest. the general interest of the state department is the american people's interest. if anyone is working on it to only advance their own interest, they aren't working in the general interest. i think it's important that people understand that is the responsibility of all of us who will serve the country and the state department. is the general interest which is the american people's interest. >> thank you, mr. tillerson. good luck on your next assignment. >> thank you, senator shaheen. >> thank you, i'm glad you came back after lunch, mr. tillerson. i appreciated very much your response to that question. i have to say that my experience with state department employees is that overwhelming majority of

them are dedicated, dedicated to this country. they do their work often at great personal sacrifice and i think we should appreciate the work that they do. it sounds to me like you share that appreciation for the sacrifices that when they make. -- sacrifices that they make. >> i certainly do. i have a great affection for those willing to take the overseas assignments. many are in very difficult locations. particularly when their families go with them, they are truly sacrificing on behalf of this country. they deserve recognition for that and appreciation for it. >> thank you. there's been discussion today about the concerns that this committee has expressed about, which i think are legitimate, about potential conflicts of interest that you might face if confirmed as secretary of state because of your long career at exxon. and while i understand there are concerns about the precise

approach you have taken to divest your financial interests in exxon, i do appreciate that you have taken these concrete actions and that you plan it take more if you are confirmed. i wonder if you could talk about why you think that's important. >> senator, and again, as i have commented in response to your question earlier, i had a good 41.5 year career. i was truly blessed. enjoyed every minute of it. that part of my life is over. i never thought i would have the opportunity to serve in this way. when i made the decision to say yes to president-elect trump when he asked me to do this, the first step i took was to retain my own outside counsel to begin the process, knowing i must have a complete clean break from all of my connections at exxon

mobil. not even the appearance. whatever is required for us to achieve that, get that in place, i am appreciative to that exxon to workard were willing with me to achieve that as well. it was their objective two. in the end, that required me to walk away from some things, that was fine. what -- whatever was necessary for me to achieve that. the appearancent that there is any connection to myself and the future fortunes up or down of the exxon mobil corporation. >> again, thank you very much for that. i am sad to say that i think it stands in stark contrast to what we heard from president-elect trump today who announced that he is not going to do fest himself from his vast business interests around the world. your recognition that this is important to

maintaining the integrity around the world. you talked about eliminating isis as one of the top priorities if confirmed. your opening statement connects radical islam to isis, and you also make the point of saying that you think it is important to support muslims around the world who reject radical islam. during the last congress, this committee heard about the importance of working with the muslim community and the united states to combat isis and the terrorists who have been produced as a result of isis ideology. in your view, is it helpful to suggest that as americans, we should be afraid of muslims? mr. tillerson: no, senator. in my travels and because of my past work, i have can -- traveled extensively in muslim

countries very not just the middle east but set -- southeast asia. i have gained a respect for this great fate. that is why a made the decision muslim should support voices who reject the same radical islam that we reject. this is part of winning the war other than on the batting -- battlefield. we have to win and not just on the battlefield, one of our greatest allies in this war is going to be the moderate voices of people of the muslim faith who speak from their perspective and their rejection of that representation of what is otherwise a great faith. supporto, you restricting travel or immigration to the united states by muslims? >> i think what is important is that we are able to make a judgment about the people coming into the country. so no, i do not support a blanket type rejection of any particular group of people. but clearly, we have serious

challenges. --be able to affect people vet people coming into the country. due to the instability in parts of the world and the massive -- ation out of the region i don't think we should close and ignore that. we have to be clear about that threat and the means to deal with it. >> i certainly agree with that. which is what is -- is different entireban on in -- an religion. do you support creating a national registry for muslim americans? mr. tillerson: i would need to have a lot more information around how such an approach would even be constructed, and ,f it were a tool for vetting

then it probably extends to other groups as well, other groups that are threats to the u.s.. moreuld require much information around how that would even be approached. >> and one of the things you and was thesed when we met special immigrant visa program that we have maintained for afghans who have helped our men and women in the military on the ground. would you support continuing that program to ensure that those people who have been who helped our men and women are able to come to this country when their lives are threatened in afghanistan? mr. tillerson: a special visa waiver program is important, it is important that we protect the lives of those who are at risk because of their efforts to assist our american military forces or other forces in afghanistan. it is also important to make the distinction, otherwise we undermine this program and risk forng it and not expanded

other people who come through the program who are not truly at risk. i think it is the execution. this gets back to following through on what the intent of these programs were. and let's be variance -- specific and not get sloppy in of execution and have a lot other folks coming through the program who don't meet that criteria. thank you, i think congress has pretty narrowly focused the program. i appreciate that. >> and i do want to say that i appreciate the fact that you are able to highlight that the secretary of state shares his views, ultimately has to carry out the policies of the president. to distinguish that sometimes people have very different views and they lobby strongly for those views and that is what we are wanting to hear from. what mr. tillerson's view our --

these are on this and how he will attempt to persuade the administration. he may be unsuccessful, but i thank you for highlighting that, senator. mr. tillerson, thank you for your continued patience and participation in this important discussion. discussions today on human rights issues. i was notified that the administration has sanctioned two additional individuals in north korea under the legislation that we passed his past year, the north korea sanctions act. the younger sister of kim jong-un was sanctioned for human rights violations as well as the minister of state security in north korea. i appreciate the commitment you gave me in the prior round of questioning about your commitment to the mandatory sanctioning of people who carry out human rights violations. something we can do together, something the administration and congress work to protect people

from tyrants around the globe who wouldn't murder their own people. you mentioned southeast asia in your last answer. china has been actively reclaiming, building islands in the south china sea, 3000 acres of land since reclamation activities commenced in 2013. open source information that they have militarized some of these reclamation areas. we offer legislation, resolution that called for the obama administration to take a more aggressive approach to these activities in the south china sea, including additional and more frequent freedom of navigation operations over the south china sea. in july, the international tribunal ruled against china that they violated philippine side -- sovereignty. doing to could we be stop china from violating international law? mr. tillerson: when it comes to china him and you mentioned north korea previous to this --

we have to take what i call a whole of china approach. part of her we struggled with china -- we do have important economic relationships. our economies are intertwined. but we have to step back and look at all of china's activities. the one you mention now, the island building in the south china sea -- the declaration of control of airspace and waters over the islands of japan. both are illegal actions. they are taking territorial control or declaring the courier -- territorial control over islands that are not china's. the island building in the south china sea, in many respects and in my view, putting military assets on those islands is akin to russia's taking of crimea. it is taking a territory that others lay claim to.

u.s. has never taken a side in issues. but what we have advocated for is -- that is an -- a disputed area and china should respect those international processes. as you mentioned, some of their actions have already been challenged at the courts in the head and they were found to be in violation. china's activity in this area is extremely worrisome. a failure of a response has allowed them to keep pushing the envelope on this. so again, we are where we are. we have to deal with it. the way we have got to deal with it is we have to show back up in the region with our traditional allies in southwest asia -- southeast asia. using the existing structures for re-engagement. you have $5 trillion of economic trade goes through those waters every day.

to the entireat global economy if china is allowed to somehow did take terms of passage through these waters. this is a global issue of great ourrtance to many of important allies, but certainly to people in the region. >> you would support a markets -- more aggressive posture in the southeast sees? axis to those islands is not going to be allowed. >> last year i passed legislation that would encourage taiwan's entry into the international interpol that was signed into law. he has made it clear that taiwan is our friend and last sunday, mainland chinese as a result of president-elect trump's activities, the global times said the following -- if trump policy,on the one china or is no room for bargaining. the editorial also went on to they should also impose

military pressure on taiwan and push it to the edge of being reunified by force. combined with the prc's recent show of force exercises, it appears beijing has increased its pressure on taiwan. can you share with this can -- committee the trump's administration policy on taiwan? mr. tillerson: with respect to taiwan, we have made important commitments to taiwan, to the six issues accord. we should express a reaffirmation of those. this is part of this approach that i am trying to lay out over and over. we have made commitments to people. we need to reaffirm those commitments and live up to those commitments. i think it is important that taiwan no we are going to -- know we will live up to those. that is a message in an of itself. action --ance of that this whole of china approach i

am speaking about is, we have to china'sh the whole of actions and recognize that we have these balancing forces in our relationship that need to be dealt with. >> in terms of one china china's policy, the new administration's position. mr. tillerson: i don't know of any plans to alter the one china position. >> thank you. an issue back in colorado that is important and coming to the attention of a lot of people around the country. compassion international faith-based group in colorado surged nearly 2 million people living in poverty around the world. they have operated out of colorado -- compassion has operated in india since 1968. they have contributed nearly $50 million to aid in india. they have provided scholarships for 145,000 indian children. its instructive 14, possession -- compassion has been the target of governmental attacks because of its christian belief.

delivering humanitarian services to hundreds of thousands of indian children. due to the restrictions by the government, they have been a -- unable to fund its india operation since 2016 despite having broken no laws. i believe the state department should take notice that this ill-treatment of compassionate internationals should stop. it is part of a broader pattern by india were other ngo's have seen similar problems. we just appreciate your assistance on that. this is a disturbing pattern as the organization does nothing more than try to help children in poverty. mr. tillerson: i appreciate you bringing it to my attention and if confirmed, look forward to discussing it further with you. >> i also appreciate you bringing up -- i know there is concern about this issue and he will be thankful that you wanted draw to everyone's attention here today.

senator udall. >> mr. tillerson, in your capacity as ceo of exxon mobil, the you praise the paris agreement last year noting that addressing climate change " requires broad-based practical solutions around the world." believe that the overall national interests of the united states are better served by staying in the paris agreement. if so, why? if not, why not? mr. tillerson: as i indicated earlier, having a seat at the table to address this issue on a -- and it is important. i think it is 190 countries who have signed on to take action. we are better served by being at that table and by leaving that table. >> and i think you understand generation oren a

more that it has taken to get all the countries at the table to sign an agreement, be willing to move forward with targets and it would be very unfortunate i think to move away from the table. so thank you for your answer there. i just wanted to follow-up on discussions the senator had with you in the first round and continue to look at the successes of our policy change in cuba. you as aainly because ceo of exxon, i suspect that you had a low tolerance for old -- failed tod felt produce positive results. regardless of what one thinks about the cuban government, no one can argue that the policy of embargo and isolation has achieved any progress. the proof is right in front of us. the castro regime indoors. -- endures. i am a proponent of re-engagement, which has already produced results.

in thinking about your bottoms up review, i would point out that these things i am going to mention have happened and are very positive. first of all, we have worked with the cubans to combat diseases such as zika, diabetes and a multinational inort to combat ebola africa. efforts to the internet have paid off with new wi-fi hotspots in havana and increased efforts to bring improved cellular access to the island, including roaming deals u.s. carriers. bilateral business activity supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce and the hispanic chamber of commerce. last week, the united states and cuba signed a bilateral agreement to prepare for and respond to oil spills and inardous substance pollution the gulf of mexico and the straits of florida. our new policy towards cuba according to a 2015 pew research

americans that 72% of support renewed diplomatic relations and 73% support ending the embargo. i doubt there are many issues were such a vast majority of the american people agree, and i hope that we will not the letting those americans down by returning to a period were such efforts are made impossible by a failed policy that showed no results. instead, i hope you will continue to support the cuban small business owner. almost 500,000 licensed businesses and growing. and to continue the engagement, which has led to increased opportunity for both cuban and american businesses in cuba. will you recommend to president-elect trump it policy of engagement with cuba in order to foster the change that is needed on the island, or do you prefer to go back to the old

policy of the past 50 years that failed to bring real change or undermine the castro regime? mr. tillerson: well senator, if of theed the job diplomat is to engage. engagement is always preferred and our door is always open to engage to affect change. but we have to be honest with ourselves about the engagement with cuba. there is long-standing statutes in place that govern that relationship. , stateberg amendment sponsors of terrorism, or his specific criteria around whether we, and organizations and those that are conducting affairs in cuba are in compliance with those, the statutory requirements. able to engage in a positive way and still meet all of the compliance of those statutes, and that is a good thing. i don't know. because i have not had the

opportunity to have a full examination of what changed. because there is a lot of activity that has been enabled and obviously somebody had to make a determination that something changed. change?in fact, i would like to see the documentation, the information around that. otherwise, if we are going to change the relationship, we have to change those statutes as well. this common thing you may be hearing from me is i believe we live up to the agreements and the laws and we fully enforce them. they were put there for a reason. if circumstances change and we need to change our pastors on those as well. demands as why it bottom-up review. a lot of things have been changed in the recent past year, much by executive order. and i think the president-elect has indicated he would like to understand that. what criteria did the state department used to make its determinations?

that is what he will ask me. >> the reason i cited those polls is because i think the american people are at the point of wanting those statutes to be set aside. , so i don't one want to argue with you but i very much appreciate your answers in terms of consulting state department people and i can't think of better professionals than the state department professionals who spent decades learning about the regions they serve in, the specific countries they work on and i appreciate your thoughtfulness in terms of doing that. just a final question. has sen. menendez: chaired, the whole issues -- has senator menendez mentioned, a whole set of issues. i believe we have a better chance of getting in out. we're already having discussions if we engage with them rather

than a policy of isolation. thank you very much. >> we will continue on the same thing for a bit. i want to talk for a minute about -- we hear the word concession a lot. we shouldn't make concessions to dictators or despots. some of the executive orders who have been taken over the past couple of years. 2009, the first is in cuban americans still had families in cuba. chooseuld have to between going to their mother's funeral or their father's funeral if their parents died within the same three years. what a horrible thing to ask of an american. do you believe it is a concession to the regime to allow a cuban-american to visit or to go to his father or mother's funeral in cuba? mr. tillerson: these are really heartbreaking questions and

again, i have to take us back to ?hat are our statutes what are the provisions that govern that? and these are were exceptions become really difficult. you.t to be honest with my expectations if confirmed is to do a complete bottom-up review of all of these issues. under what provisions are we making exceptions. under what provisions allow for a waiver? under what conditions can we grant an exception for someone to resolve these difficult personal issues, but not undermine our ability -- american values which is, leadership with cuba unless it changes the way it treats its people. >> i don't think it was the president's executive authority to make that change.

there were certainly no lawsuits .iled or any real resistance it was assumed this is a great thing and hundreds of thousands of them have. and have remitted more money. it was illegal them -- for them to send fishhooks to their families on the island before. there's -- those are some of the restrictions that were removed. submit that those are not concessions to a regime to allow americans to travel. those sanctions are on americans, not cubans. in the same vein, with regard to diplomatic relations. he have diplomatic relations with some pretty unsavory ofntries, or the leadership some countries is pretty unsavory. with saudi arabia, we don't agree with how they treat women or political opponents in the country. is it a concession to the regime to have diplomatic relations with the country? mr. tillerson: the question

again is, that is grounded in long-standing historic policy of the united states. statutes thatd govern the policy -- if the time has come for statutes to be altered, that will be the role of congress to alter the statutes. in the meantime, the state department if i am there, and confirmed to be there, it is our role to enforce what congress has expressed its desire. if the judgment of the congress and the judgment of the state department, the president-elect through consultation views that we have moved to a different place, then we should address that. but not just ignore what the law for land is. understand that completely. i am just saying that diplomatic relations with countries is not a concession to those countries. it is in our national interest,

it is the way we practice statecraft and diplomacy to have diplomacy. there are fugitives from justice in cuba who we would like back. there are fugitives from justice in the number of other countries that we would like back as well. we use our diplomatic missions, we use statecraft and diplomacy to try and arrange those things. if we ask -- said to every country who held fugitives from justice, we are going to withhold diplomatic relations, recalling our ambassadors, where would we be? i suggest a review is prudent. i am glad the administration is undertaking a review. i believe that a review will conclude that some of the measures that have been taken, allow americans to travel to cuba, we still have restrictions . i would suggest the restrictions that are still in place simply force americans to place more money in the government's hands

when they do travel to cuba. even americans and other , if wes of this country lift the ban completely it would ensure that more cap -- money goes to family members and entrepreneurs on that island. i am glad the review is going to take place and am glad that you are going to be a part of that review. a half left, and you have talked a lot about sanctions. as i mentioned, i share your of version to sanctions, particularly when practiced unilaterally. are merely a method or tool that we have to change behavior or induce or punish countries. what other tools to we have without report -- resorting to sanctions? mr. tillerson: depending on what the issue is and what the target , we have other tools

related to our trade policies in general. we have tools related to our visa exchange policies. in terms of the soft power side of this, obviously we always use.a hard power tool to i think it does depend on the specific country, the specific issue, what our relationship has been, what are the pressure points that they are going to feel? around the issue i have ensuring the sanctions are properly structured so we hit the proper pressure point, that causes the change in the way that party is thinking or the change in the direction they are going. it is very much case-by-case in terms of what we can use to apply pressure to whatever government we are wanting to alter their course. >> thank you, mr. chairman. oni appreciate your comment

cuba and the multilateral sanctions. you will find on both sides of the aisle, strong divisions on the issue of cuba. people sitting next to each other having very different views. i do hope you will seek input of ahead and doy move a top to bottom review. i want to clarify, i don't think that necessarily you expressed a diversion to sanction -- and a version to sanctions. version to sanctions. just that they are implemented correctly. is that correct? mr. tillerson: correct. having incorrect sanctions is worse than having no sink since at all. it sends a weak signal to the target country that they are not serious after all. if we are going to have

sanctions, they need to be carefully crafted so that they are effective. >> thank you. i will stay in the americas. you and i had a discussion in my office about the americas. you have done work in the is and being a texan, he recognized the importance of the relationships. we have been grappling on this committee and in this country with unaccompanied minors coming from the north and triangle, migration from mexico is at an even zero point. but instability in the northern triangle, violence, drug trade, weak civil institutions has created challenges. bipartisanship -- bipartisan investments in the northern triangle reach the objective of creating stability there. talk about that part of our foreign affairs portfolio and how would you approach those issues?

mr. tillerson: i appreciate you bringing us back to the western hemisphere. we have talked about the hotspots. i say that in all seriousness because i don't think we should in any way down great the importance of the western hemisphere and what is going on, not just in central america, but south america as well. or are important relationships. -- there are in portion relationships -- important relationships. the immigration challenge, and i think you described it pretty well. what has happened over the most inent time is a real shift where these people coming across the border and in and illegal fashion, where they are coming from. they are largely transiting across mexico's border. i'm aware of the northern triangle project, which is trying to strengthen law enforcement because a lot of frome are motivated to run

a high crime-ridden area, anti-narcotics trafficking, helping strengthen the institutions and providing a safer environment to people down there in the extent we can direct assistance programs that give some economic development as well. some of which is simple infrastructure projects. not just a special targeted available,funds made but also how we use other aid programs like the millennium challenge corporation to develop the capabilities of these countries to perform better. you and i spoke about this when we were in your office, out of our true compassion for these people that are coming across the border, any of which are , how toanied minors deal with that. i know in response to that

challenge, there been some well intended action taken, programs all well intended, but when those cap translated , theto the host country places these people are leaving from. we know it got misinterpreted. even the leaders of those countries have spoken in public and indicated, the wrong signals are being sent down here as a result of this effort to be compassionate. and in fact, it is incentivizing some because it is misunderstood, to take even greater risk to themselves, to their children, to try and make this journey across mexico, largely using illegal smugglers to get them to this country. i think we have to be very thoughtful about the signals we are sending, the messages we are signaling, and it goes back to

trying to address some of these issues in the host country. also work with mexico, our partner right next door. this is a challenge for them. how to secure their southern border and deal with all of this transiting of their country to -- to the land of the free and home of the brave or everybody wants to be. i acknowledged the challenge that we have before us. we are going to have to deal with the situation that we have today. the reality of it. i think this is where the intent of the president-elect, while he ofs express it in the view the wall, but what he is expressing his we have got to get control of this border. we have to prevent and stop the flow of people coming across and how we do that, what policies and how we execute those are yet to be developed. but certainly, the state department if i am confirmed the

have a big role in the foreign aspect of that. once they are across the border, they are largely the homeland securities responsibility. the state department is, what actions do we take to prevent people in an illegal fashion. we want people to come legally. that is the history of the country. people came here legally. >> as i said my office, i always secretary of state to fly north and south, not just the east-west. some opportunities in the americas we don't take advantage of. there are some real opportunities. i assume you support the u.s. position that has been in place the 1940's to do what we can, even if it is hard, to promote a two state solution in israel and palestine with a jewish state of israel and an independent state of palestine living side-by-side, the dreamy hope for that region. mr. tillerson: i don't think

anyone would take the position that they don't hope for peace in that area. >> peace within the context of a two state solution as determined by the u.n. and the bipartisan policy of the united states since the 1940's. mr. tillerson: i think that is the dream everyone is in pursuit of, whether it can be a reality remains to be seen. >> this is something that has frustrated all of us, that there has been so little progress in the last few years. , from theu think secretary of state's position, you could do to try and hasten the day when we can find the path forward. people didn't think you could find a deal between ireland and northern ireland for hundreds of years, yet youngsters in ireland don't remember a problem. -- toight you bring the the table? mr. tillerson: i think it is indicative of how conflicts in this take a long time.

sometimes it takes another generation have a change of view . oftentimes, we just have to try and make the situation as stable -- as possible and limit the impacts on people who are living there now. the palestinian people have suffered a lot under their own leadership in many cases, as a result of not being more progress made. it has to be the shared aspiration of all us -- of us that it is resolved. it is the state department's role to try and create an environment to bring parties together the want to move forward. it is extremely challenging to do that, but that has to be the aspirational goal. to your example, sometimes it takes a different generation. that is not carrying all the baggage of the past with them. >> thanks for sharing.

mr. tillerson, from the outset, i just want to thank you the level of candor you have shown throughout this hearing. you have engaged on issues, answered questions, then at that at times and i want that from our nation's chief diplomat. kill the request i would make is that they don't coach that out of you. , should it move forward and you become our next secretary of state, chai suspect you will. so thank you for that. write, defeating isis must be our foremost priority in the middle east. note later that defeat will not occur on the battlefield alone, we must win the war of ideas, something we have already discussed and it are. i couldn't agree more. we have to win the are of ideas.

we can kill every single irreconcilable, as you know, who subscribes to this poisonous ideology that those who join isis do and we will still have a problem. organization will reconstitute itself, so really -- there is something deeper beneath to tap into, a deeper taproot. in your prepared statement, you indicate that if confirmed, you will assure that the state department will do its part in the war of ideas. based on your presentation for this hearing, what is your assessment of the state department's current performance in the war of ideas. make your comments specific to the efforts against the islamic state. mr. tillerson: i'm not sure i could arts -- articulate what the current state department is doing in the war ideas, other

than the public advocacy condemning this type of locality. -- brutality. observation that even if we defeat isis and its ,aliphate in syria and iraq they will morph to something else. this is where we have to be truthful and realistic in our conversations with the american people. terrorism has been a part of the world for centuries. .t is the nature of man andwe have to do is limited suppress it to a level it is no longer a threat to our national security or a threat -- an orinent threat to americans all other people in the world who value human life. >> in a recent hearing before the senator of services clapper believes

that the u.s. may reestablish and information agency to fight the information war and defense radicalrts to defeat extremists or terrorists, however one chooses to brand them. do you agree this would be a good idea? mr. tillerson: as i indicated in we exchange with a senator, have two up our game in terms of how we engage in the digital communication world. that is were isis has been very effective and other radical groups. al qaeda and others, have been effective in using the digital communication space to spread their message. we have got to become more effective at countering that message and encountering the message. digital, there are other communication mechanisms that are effective broad base in

terms of how do we communicate, particularly in those parts of the world that could be susceptible to these messages? for the benefit of my colleagues and for your benefit, i'll note -- i am just coming from the house of representatives and in my final two year term, introduced legislation so that congress could assess whether the countering violent extremism initiative within the obama administration was working or not. is it working? i was prepared to be reefed in a classified setting, yet the administration came out fairly strong against our efforts to exercise oversight. my hope would be that i can work together in a bipartisan way in the next administration, we have the tools to assess whether we are proving and work with the administration to ensure that we are in fact killing the terrorists, countering violent

extremism and making sure this effort doesn't reconstitute its self moving forward. back to the prepared statement. notwrite that china has been a reliable partner in using its influence to curb korea. we have discussed this before. slightly different attack here. an open-ended question, why do you believe china has not done more? mr. tillerson: i am aware that under the most recent version, the un's sanctions, have been ratcheted up with each of north korea's provocative -- whether it has been a nuclear test for the test firing of a missile. i indicated earlier that china is 90% of north korea's trading exports and imports trading. they really do have complete control over what sustains the government of north korea. a big part of that is the sale across the border. the sanctions did speak to that sale.

that is an area where we have to hold china accountable to comported with the sanctions that we're -- were put in place by the human. he had to call -- my the u.n.. we have to call people out on that. when they are not complying. >> are not be -- might be an opportunity to respond to that to ensure that the missile and nuclear programs comply with international law and our security interests. under the u.n. resolutions, north korea has already violated those on multiple occasions. what would you suggest to the president of the united states, that he consider doing to wield more effective influence on china's decision-making in north korea. it does involve a

concerted response from our allies, japan, north korea. making sure japan understands that this whole of china approach, that this is an important element of what they can do to strengthen our relationship, but they can do to weaken our relationship then. -- with them. >> thank you. senator marshall. you for sticking the south, mr. tillerson. i want to come back to the issue of human rights. believe you are going to be a lot of human rights advocates, a lot of people were hoping the united gaetz maintains its maintainingole on and promoting human rights throughout the world and will be very worried by some of your testimony here today. when asked about the 35 extrajudicial killings in the philippines, you aren't ready to say that you have enough evidence to call that a violation of human rights and

similar answer on saudi arabia. and a similar answer with respect to the war crimes perpetuated by the russians inside syria. i guess the simple question for you is this. if you are not ready to say today that what is happening in the philippines is a human rights violation despite the fact that the president brags about killing people without trial or the denial of rights to women in saudi arabia as a named human rights violation or what is happening in syria as a war crime, can you maybe give us a little sense of what countries today you would consider to be , orators of human rights how you would make judgments about where the u.s. pursues human rights violators and where we don't. it is i think it will be a surprise to a lot of people coming out of this hearing that you aren't ready today to call president to take a a violator of human rights or call what is

happening in saudi arabia a named violation of human rights under international law. i think somewhere in your questioner, senator murphy:'s in fact, the answer. going to act on factual information. i am not going to act on what people write about in the newspapers or even what people may brag they have done. people brag about and they may or may not have done. i am going to act on the fact. they have confirmed that i am going to have access to information i don't have today. it is just my nature to prejudge events or judge and make conclusions or conclude that someone has in fact violated this norm or in fact, now meets the standard to be labeled this until i have seen those facts myself. that should in no way suggests that if those acts that you have are backed up by the

facts, i would agree with your labeling and characterization. i am not willing to do that on the record today because i have not seen that information. so please don't confuse that with my standards -- they are no different than yours. the philippines for example. i don't know there is anybody on this committee who would deny there are extrajudicial killings happening in the philippines. it has been widely reported. our embassy has reported, the president himself talks about it. what more information do you need before deeming the philippines to be a human rights violator? what is happening there is a massacre. it is there for everyone to see. mr. tillerson: i'm sure the committee has seen a lot of evidence i have not seen. i am not disputing your conclusions. you are asking me to make a judgment on only what i am being told. that is not how i make judgments. >> what information in that case would you need? who would you need to hear from?

i would want to see the factual basis behind the statistics and the factual connection as to who is committing those at. >> a lot of times the factual evidence is reporting by object is observers -- objective observers on the ground. i am not sure you are going to get a videotape of a next her judicial -- extrajudicial killing. a lot of times it is the reporting we get from on the ground in the philippines. mr. tillerson: i will rely on multiple sources to confirm what i am being told. blame it on me being an engineer. it is the engineering in me that i deal with fact and i analyze and i conclude. and i am sure there is a lot of credible information out there that i simply have not seen. >> this is a question that often gets asked members of congress

to judge their view of politics and conflict in the middle east. simple one. the believe the iraq war, not the conduct, but the war itself, was a mistake? mr. tillerson: i think i indicated in response to the question -- that i think our motives were commendable, but we did not achieve the objectives. we did not achieve greater stability. improvedt achieve national security for the united states of america. that is just the events have borne that out. .t the time, help the same view i was concerned, just as i was concerned before the decisions were made to go into libya and change the leadership there. it is not that i endorsed that leadership. playleadership had to somewhat stable with a lot of bad actors in prison.

how those bad actors are running around the world. -- our question of ultimate goal has to be to change the type of oppressive leadership. it has to be that we know what is coming after. we have a cai -- high confidence that we can control what comes after or influence it and it will be better than what we just took out. >> in this case, which motives are you referring to that were commendable? mr. tillerson: i think the concerns were that saddam hussein represented a significant threat to stability in that part of the world and to the united states directly. and so, i understand that people were looking at information that was available to them, information that is not available to me, at least at this point. i am making this comment as a casual observer. >> one last question going back

to russia. in an earlier question, you said today to not commit the continuation of sanctions against the russians for their involvement in the u.s. presidential election. you make a commitment today that if you'd team sanctions to be inappropriate policy, that you will recommend an argument for a substitute response for the interference with u.s. elections? will you argue for a u.s. response, even if you don't believe sanctions is the right policy? mr. tillerson: yes. it is troubling and if there is a -- additional information that indicates the level of interfacial -- interference, it deserves a response. >> just to follow up. havembassies in countries pretty massive capabilities that are well-known. instance,lippines for

if our embassy assessed in very high confidence, since you are not going to be able to be on the ground. you are going to have to rely on people, as you get as an engineer and the ceo of the company. if they assess that extrajudicial killings were taking place, that would probably be enough evidence for you that he was a human rights violator, would it be? mr. tillerson: in all likelihood, it would be. >> i know that this community -- committee has very strongly and in a bipartisan way, and it has ofn in multiple irritations appropriation and now authorization to and modern -- iny, to end partnership with other parts of the world. i have worked in the philippines were much of that is occurring.

do you plan to continue to support the effort that has been authorized here and has been appropriated to work in conjunction with the community -- the world community to and bl of the greatest lights -- people inmillion slavery. mr. tillerson: not just to speak to causeto take action them to change that. i know this is a particularly passionate issue to yourself and other members of the committee. slavery and human trafficking have to be addressed and america has to lead in this particular area. >> thank you so much. senator isakson. candor youu for your have exhibited to the community

-- committee. andnt to ask one question will raise the rest of my time so we can get some rest. one of the roles of the state department, some of the soft power. part of that is the ability to solve problems no one else can solve. in westa outbreak africa, it was the cdc that created the mechanism that we stopped ebola. now we have a vaccine that will prevent ebola. a great victory for humanity and the process. the money that went to treat patients in west africa was a special appropriation of the united states senate and the house to create an emergency fund to deal with ebola. state department had referred to the cdc to take care of, in which they did. ever no funds available for that and to this day, that payment

has not been reimbursed. it seems to be a good time for us to look at the cdc, which is the heart of the solution and create an emergency fund reserve or we have an amount of money available to the cdc secretary so they can immediately go to use for an emergency like ebola. i am going to try and work to establish that this year and i would hope when you are confirmed, you will work with me to do that. mr. tillerson: i look forward to engaging with you on that, senator. right, the cdc response to the ebola outbreak was remarkably well managed. i would make an observation, because all of this at some point gets to someone who has to pay for all of this. in examining for how the world health organization did in these outbreaks, i think what it exposed was some deficiencies within the world health organization as well, that they were not able to respond. that is where normally, this is

where an outbreak took place in another part of the world, they should have been the first responders to the scene. in toassets had to be put those countries to address that. i think it is worth an cdc's role -- and how these outbreaks, how is that interface working with the global health organizations as well. >> thank you very much for your time and congratulations on your nomination. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. tillerson, and you agree with president-elect trump when he said "it wouldn't be a bad thing for us if japan, south acquired saudi arabia nuclear weapons." mr. tillerson: i don't think

anyone advocates for more nuclear weapons on the planet. >> donald trump said it would not be a bad thing. you agree or disagree? mr. tillerson: i do not agree. >> would you commit to working vigorously to making sure that no additional country on the planet obtains a nuclear weapons capacity? mr. tillerson: if confirmed, it is a vital -- one of the vital roles for the state department to play in working with the national security council in an interagency way, has to be nuclear nonproliferation. we cannot walk away from her commitment to see a reduction in the number of these weapons on the planet. trump said onlect twitter that in his view, the united states must expand its .uclear capability when warned this could trigger an arms race, he replied, let it

be an arms race. do you agree with president-elect trump that the united states should welcome a nuclear arms race with russia or with china? would that be a good thing for the united states? mr. tillerson: senator, i think as we are pursuing nonproliferation, we are also pursuing important agreements like a new start, we have also approach those from a position of strength. in the context of some of the quotes that you are running through here, the president-elect is also indicating a commitment to nuclearhe the levels of capability that we maintain under agreed treaties, those capabilities must be made at from time to time, that means we must renew them and bring them up to date and ensure they are capable. otherwise, we have an asymmetrical arrangement with people we are negotiating with. >> that is at odds with what he

has been quoted publicly as saying, so i just think it is important for us to hear you take a position that in fact negotiations towards reducing the nuclear threat rather than having a nuclear arms race is much better for our country and the global security. if you are confirmed, would you protect the rights of all career employees of the state department, so that they retain their right to speak with congress? tillerson: as pursuant to an open and effective dialogue with with the courage that issues are put on the table with discussions for congress, yes. you just had a great conversation with senator isaacson about global health issues. and one of our great achievements over the last couple of decades has been the establishment and investment in

pfar, the global leadership fund to fight aids, tb and malaria -- millions of lives have been saved, and health infrastructure has been built in the developing world. could you discuss your view of those programs, and your commitment to strengthening them in the years ahead? is one ofson: pepfar the remarkable successes of the past decade or more. obviously, begun under president bush. i think what is notable about there are measurable results. very well-managed. very well targeted. getting at those three diseases, i think it serves as a model for us to look to as we are thinking about other ways in which to project america's values, project our compassion. threatso solve these that are in other parts of the

world that, by and large, were -- malaria eradicated decades ago. tv, well under control. aids, great treatment programs available to people. projecting that into other parts of the world is a marvelous way to send a message of the compassion of the american people, that we care about people's lives all over the world. pepfar is a terrific model to look at in the future as we think about other areas that may be useful for us to put additional programs in place. arkey: i would like to move to another global health issue as it impacts the united states. this is the opioid epidemic. it has now been transformed into a fentanyl issue. in massachusetts this year, in new hampshire, senator shaheen's peopleate, 3/4 of the who died in 2016 of opioid overdose died from fentanyl.

occurring at the same rate across the country as it did in massachusetts in 2016, that would be 75 thousand people a year dying from fentanyl overdoses. the way this is coming into america is, pretty much, the chemicals come in from china. they go down from mexico. and then they are trafficked in out of mexico into the regions of the country. sen. rubio: a similar problem in florida. to elevate this issue, mr. secretary, to a much higher level of importance in our country. the terrorism that is going to kill americans on the streets of are the terrorists who are selling fentanyl. it is the mexican and chinese operatives who are funneling this into our country. that is the terrorist fear in the hearts of americans.

can you talk about how strong you intend on ensuring that the state department takes, in terms to tell the chinese and the mexicans how serious we , thisout this threat existential threat to families all across our country? if tillerson: senator, confirmed, this will require an interagency approach, both in terms of applying many of the tools that have been used in terror financing elsewhere to track the flow of money, attempt to disrupt on both ends of that -- because i think it is one thing -- we can send the chinese a message, that it is another thing to put in place a mechanisms, whether it be working with treasury and other process, to disrupt the flow of these -- these materials and these drugs as well. clearly, we have a message to project to china.

what am also clear eyed about china just suddenly saying, never mind. across our: a wall southern border will not keep fentanyl out. it will take much tougher action if we are going to see, permately, two vietnams year of deaths in the united states from that one drug. senator: i have a couple of questions to follow up on some things you have been asked already. you were talking about pepfar. there is ans know abuse in the private sector and in government. with the kind of debt we have as a nation, they want to know you are committed to, when you see it, to eliminating duplication, illuminating redundancies, and do what you can to try to address this incredible debt that we have.

i amillerson: senator, obviously very consistent in my nature to look for efficiencies and to streamline. if confirmed, it will start right there in the state department itself, in terms of assessing the organization structure at the state department. i know as part of preparing, i have looked at organization charts from a few years ago, an organization charts today. i have noticed there are a few more boxes. some of those may be for very good and valid reasons. thatlso, it appears to me new issues which have been added may rightfully need to be placed back into the mission and integrated into the mission itself. it appears to me we have got some duplication, it is not only about saving the american taxpayers dollars and spending them wisely. it is also about delivery on the issue. if we have got it dispersed in several places, we are probably not dealing with the issue very effectively either, because there is lack of clarity as to

how this issue integrates into the missions obligations, and what we are trying to achieve in the various missions of the state department. i just give you that as a simple example, because it was so obvious to me when i began to look at the chart. i know there will be opportunities to streamline things, with the objective primarily of being more effective in terms of how we carry out the state department mission, making sure people havingand what they own, clarity, line of sight, to who is accountable. out of that i think will naturally come a capture of some efficiencies. barroso: another topic that was discussed was human rights. we talk to leaders concerned about security in their nations, economic growth of the nations, and somewhat human rights, but perhaps not to the degree that we would like to see that commitment. these are people we have interests with, in terms of our own global security.

as secretary of state, how do you balance engaging these tontries, in terms of trying protect their security as well as the economic aspect, as well as protecting and focusing on human rights? mr. tillerson: senator, i take the view it is never an either/or choice we make. it has been said i think our values are our interest, and our interests are our values. so regardless of what we may be dealing with, our values are never not sitting on our shoulder in full display, on the table. i think the real question you are trying to get to is, how do we advance those values against other priorities at the time? and i did -- and, again, just speaking in an honest assessment in my opening remarks, acknowledged that from time to time, our national security may have to take a priority. it does not mean our values are different or its eyes. it does not mean -- our values are de-prioritized.

it doesn't mean they are not right here on our shoulder with us. how do we project those values to another country in a negotiation, in a way that they begin to move closer to our values? that is always there. it is never an either/or choice. sen. barrasso: the last thing i wanted to get to is the issue of energy as a master resource, in the way putin uses it as a political weapon. one of the things we are seeing is this pipeline. pipeline between russia and united states has been working closely with our european partners, with respect to that. this is something we have had bipartisan support on. senator shaheen, senator murphy have both signed a letter with me, with senator rich, senator rubio: sen. johnson: because of our concern with the ability with this pipeline to deliver more energy and make europe more

dependent upon russia for energy. it also bypasses ukraine and impacts the ukrainian economy as well, when it runs directly from russia under the baltic sea, directly into germany. several european countries have that thiscerns pipeline would undermine sanctions on russia, increase russia's political leverage over eastern europe -- and could you give us your assessment of something in which there is bipartisan agreement on this panel, with regard to? mr. tillerson: energy is vital to every economy the world over, so it can be used as a powerful tool to influence -- kind of tip the balance of the table in one party's direction or the other. so it is important that we are watching and paying attention to when this balance is upset. the greatest response of the united states can give to that threat is the development of our own natural resources.

the country is blessed with enormous natural resources of both oil and natural gas. and i know the congress took action here in the recent past to approve the export of crude oil. we now have exports of liquefied natural gas. the more u.s. supply which comes from a stable country that lives by our values, we can provide option a la the -- we can provide optionality two countries so they cannot be held captive to a single source or a dominant source. that is a physical response to that issue. i think from a positive standpoint, -- from a policy standpoint, it is engaging with countries to make sure they understand they have choices, and what those choices are, and what can we do in foreign policy to help them gain access to multiple choices, so they are not captive to just one or a dominant source. sen. barrasso: thank you and

thank you for your willingness to serve. thank you, mr. chairman. chairman: senator booker? booker: thank you. this has been a long process and you have shown a lot of pose and endurance, so thank you. i want to pick up on something senator shaheen was asking about what you said, issues with our muslim allies around the globe, as well as muslim countries. you have been really resonating with my spirit. i am pretty strong in talking about the muslim faith. you called it -- i wrote down -- faith."at it shows a level of respect and deference that i am sure will you well as secretary of state, should you be confirmed. what i worry about is a lot of the rhetoric coming from the president-elect and others really does undermine often our relationships with a lot of our allies. when i was traveling in the middle east, in countries like jordan, for example, i was

surprised that people at the highest level of the government were directly concerned about the rhetoric coming from individual leaders in this country. the president-elect has said that he would consider muslim americans being required to register in a government database. i just want to ask you directly -- you do not support a muslim registry, do you? people coming into this country? based on religion? mr. tillerson: in response to that question, i do not support targeting any particular. if a registry of some sort, that is broadly applied to any person entering the country that can present a threat -- sen. booker: i am sorry. my time is short. let's just use specifically the ensears registry system. i introduced legislation last week to eliminate that, potentially.

and under the bush administration, there were about 25 countries registered. all of them were muslim countries that were in that program, except for one, which was north korea. of thes then the policy obama administration, 20 out the registry. t that registry. his that's a menu you would support? the mechanism is still there. support countries it work so closely with, such as jordan? esther tillerson: senator, i appreciate the question. i'm not familiar enough to address the specific, but i will get back to you. sen. booker: i appreciate that. how does it affect our ability to work with muslim countries, and people like general michael flynn have publicly called islam a political ideology, not a religion, saying it is like a cancer, and writing that fear of muslims is rational? that cannot be constructive to our foreign policy, to our

diplomacy with key countries in southeast asia, as well as the middle east. my experience, senator, has been the best relationships in which you can make progress on tough issues is built on mutual respect of one another, which leads to hopefully mutual trust, just as we want to be trusted as to whether we are christians, or we practice the faith of judaism, or whatever our religious faith may be. and in this country, we have the freedom to practice that in any way we want. we want to be respected for that as well. but that relationship has to be built on a mutual -- a mutual respect for each other, and not a judgment about one's faith. sen. booker: sir, i am really grateful -- not that i am surprised at all, but i am grateful for you putting forth those very important values. could you answer me this -- what do you think it does to our abilities to push more

propaganda about the west, or incite more radicalism, when you hear these evil terrorist -- what do you think it does to their recruiting efforts when rhetoric like that comes from the highest levels of leadership in our country? i think it is radical islamic factions we have been talking about, whether it is isis or al qaeda -- they have broad networks, obviously, they are putting in place. and that is what we have got to disrupt. we have got to disrupt their ability to reach large numbers of people who could be persuaded. tot is what i have spoken earlier, with new tools to advance our ability -- sharingker: clearly, intelligence with other muslim-majority nations, cooperating with them, creating those relationships, is important to counter isil.

but if you are insulting and demeaning their faith, not only does it make it more difficult to intervene with your allies, but it can incite more radicalism, potentially, correct? my expectation is we will be able to engage with our traditional friends and allies not just in the middle east, but as you pointed out, there are large muslim populations in southeast asia -- indonesia, malaysia, other foreign countries in that part of the world, where we have serious issues of common interest as well. sen. booker: again, there is much about our conversation privately that i appreciate, and much about your testimony that i appreciate as well. one thing we discussed is how important usaid is, when we were together. i have real concerns, having been around the globe, seeing the powerful impact usaid is making for asserting human dignity -- i really worry that its budget has been cut. the base international affairs budget, which includes funding to state and usaid, was cut

about 30% since fiscal year 2010, despite the fact that come across multiple bipartisan administrations, there has been brought agreement to supporting both usaid and the state department as a moral, economic, and strategic perspective. i want to just hope that you will be -- i have read a lot about the way you ran your private business, streamlining, and the like. but i hope that a priority for yours is a more robust usaid program. is that something i have -- could you give me a reason to hope? mr. tillerson: i hope what you are after is more effective programs, with better use of the taxpayers' dollars, to the extent we are good at that, and we have even greater opportunity , we should seek additional funding. there will be a complete and comprehensive review of how effective we are with the dollars over there.

usaid, as i said, is an important part of the projection of america's values around the world. we are going to have -- i think there is a joint strategic plan that israel cap -- required between the state department and usaid in fiscal year 2017. that is going to be a perfect opportunity for me and those who will be working with me if i am confirmed at the state department, to take a comprehensive look at the effectiveness and what are our ranges of opportunity that might argue for greater funding. so i want to be effective with make sure that, as we are using the taxpayer dollars, they are delivering a result we are proud of. sen. booker: that is something i respect. i was a mayor. the chairman was a mayor. more money onng problems does not necessarily mean you are dealing with it more effectively. if you have effective, evidence-based programs, addressing more money is a strategic and human rights achievement.

i am low man on the totem pole -- >> chairman: you have the microphone. sen. booker: i did not know this committee was as magnanimous as it is. i do not know if we are going to have another round. agreement with others, if i could, there has been a request to all members asking -- i know there are some members that want to go another round, if we are going to make that available today. sen. booker: i expressed my thoughts to my ranking member and will await his instructions. i want to let you know this is one of the most important issues on planet earth, the position you are nominated for. it is not just about -- it is always looking for america's interests and strategic advantage, but also it is about american values of human rights, values of taking care of poor and regionalized people. you at some that point will be confirmed. i look forward to working with you, too asserting those values

of human dignity, as well as american interests abroad. so thank you, sir. >> if i might, before you call on the next witness, for my members -- there are additional questions members have asked. we are going to try to give you the time. but it is possible that if we all cooperate, you might be able to complete this hearing this evening, and not going to tomorrow, so that is what we are trying to do. obviously, we have to complete it by 6:00, because we have business on the floor by 6:00. >> i saw the look of disappointment on mr. tillerson's face. i understand that sen. rubio: have additional questions. senator menendez, senator shaheen has a little bit, a little bit. for those members who -- senator rich. we may be here tomorrow. it looks like we are going to try to finish this evening, if everybody can cooperate. and, again, if that is not the case, we are all perfectly willing to come back tomorrow.

the chair has been very helpful. some members of not had their second round. >> and mr. tillerson, things for your willingness to be patient and answer the questions, as you have with candor. i appreciate your willingness to serve. one thing we did not talk about this morning in my questions was the middle east. i know you have had experience in the middle east. you have done business in many of their countries. we talked about this a little in our meeting. at this relationship we have with israel is a special one. it is a cornerstone of our strategy in the middle east. they are our greatest ally in the middle east, one true democracy. i wanted talk a little about your views on israel and the u.s. israel relationship. one important issue for me, as you know, is this issue of

boycott, the vestment, and sanction movement, which is a global movement targeting israel . i have been concerned about this for a while, and interspersing -- ben cardin and i have passed legislation in this regard to try to push back against the bds forces. recently, of course, with the consent of the obama administration, the u.n. security also passed as regulation condemning the settlements and demanding israel cease all activities in occupied palestinian territories, including east jerusalem. i think this will no doubt galvanize additional bds activity. so here is my question to you. would you make it a priority to counter boycott, the vestment, and sanctions efforts against israel, to make sure israel is not held to a double standard, but treated as a normal member of the international community? mr. tillerson: yes, i would. sen. portman: any culinary

thoughts as to how you would do that? mr. tillerson: just by raising it in our interactions with countries that do put in place provisions of boycott, whatever elements of activity or business with israel in their country -- we begin by highlighting that we oppose that, and just expressing that view, and that those countries need to understand that does shade our view of them as well. that wouldthings help change the dynamic, obviously, would be if there were a change in the dynamic regionally. today, because of iran and the we findhat iran poses, that israel, the u.s., and the arab neighbors in the region all share the same enemy. and this gives us an opportunity to find -- to discuss things that previously i think could not have been discussed. sen. portman: do you find more

support among the countries in the region for israel as a result of the dynamic? mr. tillerson: i do not want to speak for them, senator, but i think clearly there is much more sharing going on between the leaders of those countries as they confront this singular threat to the whole region. sen. portman: that is my sense, and i think it is an opportunity. on bds, we have legislation that ties trade negotiations to dismantling bds. you support that legislation as law of the land as we conduct trade negotiation? would you support using those negotiations to help dismantle bds efforts in those countries? mr. tillerson: from the stem part of the state department, if confirmed, i would advocate for that decision, recognizing there are other agencies that would really have a purview over that. sen. portman: what attitude do you take toward human initiatives related to the israeli-palestinian conflict? is it your intention to press the palestinians to resume negotiations with israel, rather

than seeking to negotiate through international bodies such as the u.n.? what is your position on that? i havelerson: as expressed and answers to other questions -- i want to be brief, because i realize we are trying to get through quickly. this issue has to be settled between the israelis and the palestinians, and no one can be coerced into coming to the negotiating table. that will not lead to a solution. so i support the parties being allowed to deal with this, speaking for themselves. sen. portman: with regard to syria -- complicated, obviously. in my view, it has been made worse by our inaction, drawing redlines and not honoring them, but also not establishing safe zones and no-fly zones. as you know, russia's entry into syria's civil war has helped turn the tide decisively. iran was backing a sod, and now you have russia more involved in this. iran, hezbollah axis has been strengthened. and yet an enemy of the axis

would be isis. one of my questions for you is, would you, under any circumstances, arrive any sort with iran where we might have a confluence of interest in confronting isis? mr. tillerson: that is an area that requires exploration. earlier, i indicated that is where we have to find a way to engage in the overall peace process that has been agreed by russia, turkey, syria, and with iran's involvement as well. can we get engaged in that? can we at least stabilize the situation regarding rebel activity with the syrian government, and turn our attention on isis? that remains to be seen. that would involve, obviously, the engagement of others as well , and input from others as well. mr. tillerson: do you think russia -- sen. portman: do think russia has an interest in pushing back against isis, or are they simply in syria to help

us on -- to help assad? mr. tillerson: it is a convenient open door for russia to establish a presence in the middle east, a region they have long been absent from. having said that, there are common threats that russia faces because of terrorist organizations and radical islam themselves. i have steam statistics that are significant. significant fighters in isis are all speaking russian as a language. that indicates russia has got a problem as well, in terms of where those people came from, and where they may go back home too. so i think there is scope for discussion. this is what i allude to earlier. we will have to see what russia's posture is. are they looking for a partnership with us, where we can try to reestablish some type of what the working relationship? or are they uninterested in that? sen. portman: a complex situation in a difficult part of the world. i sense is that russia has not followed through on its

statement with regards to pushing back on isis in syria, and in fact have focused on 'smply protecting assad regime. thank you for your willingness to step forward into some of these complicated situations. we are looking forward to the opportunity to working together with you, going forward. i wish you best of luck. merkley: i have 10 articles i would like to submit for the record, related to exxon involvement regarding sanctions and russia's activity in ukraine. thank you. to theto turn environment. you have received many, many questions today, and we talked about this some in my office, and i think it is a reflection of how important it is as we look down a few generations from now. people with say there was a major threat to the planet. what did you all do? you noted earlier in your conversation with the chairman

that our ability to impact time of change are very limited. but i believe that when i met with you, you indicated that, but you also indicated that while we cannot model with certainty, that should not mop -- should not bother people too much. the fact that we have a challenge, we should not let that go. a view has always been it is serious risk, and we need to take steps to impress it. is that how you view it? is,tillerson: what i said the fact that we cannot predict with precision, and certainly, all of the models that we discussed that day -- none of them agree. it does not mean that we should do nothing. sen. merkley: one of the things i have seen in my time in the senate is, we have gone from talking about models of the future to what is happening on the ground now. at my state, the forests are inning at a much faster rate the heat and dryness. on the coast, the oysters are having trouble reproducing because the ocean is 30% more

acidic than before we started burning fossil fuels. not kill off during the winter and are transmitting disease. s state, i cowan' think the lowest average land -- very the country concerned about the advancing sea level and storms and experience of hurricane sandy. everyone of us in our states are seeing the facts on the ground. as we see that, we are just at the beginning of these impacts. they are getting worse each year. viewing, often, climate change as a national security issue. since you believe -- i wanted to ask -- do you see it as a national security issue? mr. tillerson: i do not see it as the imminent national security threat that perhaps others do. sen. merkley: one of the things that is noted is how the changing climate in the middle

east concentrated syrian villages into the towns, and sparked a civil war that is now producing something like 4 million and counting refugees, having profound impact on european security. be an example. is that something you have looked at or considered to be real, or perhaps misleading, or any thoughts in that regard? mr. tillerson: the facts on the ground are indisputable in terms of what is happening with disease, insect populations, all the things you site. -- cite. the science behind the clear connection is not conclusive, and there are many reports out there that we are unable yet to connect specific events to climate change alone. seeingrkley: what we are are a lot of scientific reports that will say, we can tell you the odds increased. we cannot tell you any specific event was the direct consequence.

for example, hurricane sandy might have occurred in a 100 year period, but the odds are higher with a higher sea level, higher energy storms. so do you agree with that , essentially, the odds of dramatic events occurring, whether it is more forest fires or more hurricanes, with more power, is a rational observation, from the scientific literature? mr. tillerson: as you indicated, there is some literature out there that suggests that. there is other literature that says it is inconclusive. sen. merkley: one of the things we -- i am sorry to hear that viewpoint, because it is overwhelmingly the scales are on one side of this argument. i continue to look at the scientific literature and take it seriously. that youe things mentioned was, it was impressive but so many countries came together in paris as part of a global effort to take this on. importanthat was an

outcome, that there is a global conversation. i want to make sure i am capturing correctly, -- correctly your impression of paris. mr. tillerson: as i have said before in my statements around climate change and responses to it, that it will require a global response. and the countries that attempt to influence this by acting alone are probably only harming themselves. the global approach was an important step. and i think also, as i indicated in response to a question earlier -- i think it is important that the u.s. maintain a seat at that table, so we can also judge the level of that commitment of the other 189 or so countries that are around that table and adjust our own force accordingly. sen. merkley: is this a case where american leadership in the world matters? big efforts to take on global problems unless america is driving the conversation. do you think it is important for america to drive this conversation?

mr. tillerson: i think it is important for us to have a seat at the table. it is also important that others need to step forward and decide whether this is important to them or not. if america is the only one that is willing to lead, my conclusion is the rest of the world does not think it is very important. sen. merkley: we saw the sanctions on iran. america landed, and we brought the rest of the world to the table. we saw the lead up to paris. china is committed to producing as much renewable power as our entire electricity production in the united states. we have seen india talking about how to shift electricity to 300 million people who do not have it, shifting from primarily a cold strategy to a primarily renewable energy strategy. we are seeing big countries with big populations, that have far smaller carbon footprints than the united states, stepping up. shouldn't we step up as well? mr. tillerson: i think the united states has stepped up. i think the united states has a record over the last 20 years of which it can be quite proud. sen. merkley: thank you.

and it sounds like that means you think we should keep not just being at the table -- to be at a table, you can be silent. but an active participant in taking on this challenge. mr. tillerson: i think it is important we are engaged in that same conversation, as i had, so we have a clear view of what others are doing and actions they are taking. sen. merkley: thank you. i am out of time. >> you are. if you would like to take 30 seconds -- sen. merkley: thank you. i will take those 30 seconds. earlier, we talked about the exxon working with a subsidiary to bypass american sanctions and do business with iran. you said you did not have knowledge of it, have not heard of it. have you participated in any exxon meetings in which you strategized or individuals strategized to find a legal path to do business with nations on which we had sanctions? mr. tillerson: no. sen. merkley: thank you. as an answer you

stated -- and i was delighted to hear that -- that you had reservations occasionally, when the united states acts, about what was going to happen afterwards for regime change. let me tell you that that is a refreshing view or peer. i sit on this committee. of course, i sit on the intelligence committee. we hear proposals all the time that we hear of actions people want to take all the time. but they cannot answer the question of, what is going to happen next? hope youomething i will remain committed to while you are at this job, and while you are sitting at the table, and those decisions are being made. i hope you will insist that people tell you what is going to happen next. we have been very, very short on after being able to topple a regime. if we want to do it, we can do it.

we have got the power to do it. but what comes next? everyone, for a long time around here, i heard, we are going to do nationbuilding and everything is going to be wonderful. it is going to be a new america. the nationbuilding was a great strategy in the world war ii europe, and it worked. that strategy is not working anymore. we have been notoriously -- inessful in attempting attempting to do nationbuilding. and part of it is because there is a lot of reasons for it. but obviously one of them is int we are operating countries where the culture is so much different from ours. they are different from the landscape in world war ii and after world war ii. again, i want to encourage you to take that question to the table and say, ok, i see what you have got planned. i think it is going to work. what happens next?

because that is incredibly important, when we decide what we are going to do. let me shift gears here for a minute. i want to talk about the iran situation. as you know, there are a lot of us up here that were very much opposed to the deal that was cut by the current administration with iran. there is a lot of us out there that would believe we are not done yet. this thing has sent iran on a path towards having a nuclear weapon. it is going to be some time. i could not agree more. it is going to be further down the road as a result of the deal. but it gives them, in my judgment, a legal path forward if they continue to do all the things they are required to do in the agreement, and take it step by step and year by year. and then the agreement expires and we said, ok. we're going to build the bomb. are goingobject, they to say, wait a second. we negotiated in good faith. we did everything we said we were going to do.

that is not over. but what is more concerning is the more instant question, and that is a lot of us at this table, particularly on this side of the table, urged the very clearion in terms, both in open hearings and in closedearings -- hearings, to push the iranians to behave themselves, to change -- not quitnot just fiddling with enrichment and what have you. these people are the primary sponsor of -- the greatest sponsor of terrorist activity in the world. when they were talking about giving however many billion theses it was, we said, people have been financing terrorist activities when they were broke. what do you think is going to happen when we make them rich? they said, we do not want to do that because it will interfere with what we are talking about

on the nuclear deal. to me, it was not worth the deal at all when they limited it just to that. when it comes to the u.n. sanctions or the u.n. resolutions that have been you have to behave yourself. you cannot launch missiles anymore. when the thing went into effect, they were launching missiles. there are a lot of us here that want to reimpose sanctions, in fact, ratchet sanctions up, for their activities on terrorism, for their failure to obey the u.n. sections on missile activity. the iranians say, you cannot put more sanctions on us. in fact, some people of here argue that, that that is the case. -- theeve that that administration themselves said it did not cover those activity -- the agreement did not cover those activities limited to the agreement. do you have a view on that, as i think you will be dealing with that sooner rather than later? a lot of us feel strongly about that. if we are going to change these people's attitude about joining

the world stage with the rest of civil life society, we are going to have to curtail their activities not just in the nuclear area, but in these other things that are just despicable acts. can you get some views on that? tillerson: one of the unfortunate effects of all the attention placed on the iran nuclear agreement, i think, i have heard. at least, i have heard this expressed by others. it resulted in a bit of a down focus on the immediate threat today, iran's continued sponsorship of terrorism and terrorist organizations in the --ion most particularly support for hezbollah and hamas. i think we do have to keep what is important in front of us, and what is imminent in front of us. as to the nuclear agreement toelf, i do look forward taking a comprehensive look at that, along with the side agreements, to see all the elements available to us to

-- you stay informed on their activities. and are they complying with all the inspection or permits, and confirming they are meeting the agreement. but back here your point of what happens next, in the case of taking certain regimes out, the same thing is true here with this agreement. it is, what happens at the end of this agreement? that is the important question we have to ask ourselves, because the objective does not change. iran cannot have a nuclear agreement. what happens at the end, as you point out, if they go back to where they were, and we have not achieved our objective. my intention is to use the elements of this agreement that may be helpful to us in addressing the what comes next, when this agreement is over, or what replaces it, which has to alle have once and for blocked iran's path to a nuclear weapon. they have agreed they are no

longer going to pursue one, because they have no reason to, because we changed behaviors or have mechanisms in place that are going to prevent them from pursuing that. that will be a difficult negotiation, because it was in the context of their continued sponsorship of terrorism around the world. we cannot just work this and turn a blind eye to that. it is a complicated discussion. but i think we do have to take that approach with them. we are not going to do a one-off deal with you and ask -- and act like all this stuff over here is not happening. it has to be looked at in full view, and we just have to be honest and acknowledge it. sen. risch: i am encouraged to view you say that. i sit on this committee and the intelligence committee, and i have not seen the side agreements, nor has any member of the united states congress seen the side agreements. i have traveled to the u.n. operations in vienna and met with the iaea. they will not let you see those

side agreements. these people were voting for -- the people who voted for that did so on ant agreement, part of which we were unable to see. i wish you well. we have had one witness who said she was in the room where they have the side agreements, and they were passing around, and she touched them as they went by, but did not read them. so she was not able to tell us either what was in the side agreements. i wish you well. if you get your hands on the side agreements, give me a call, would you? thank you. >> thank you for your fortitude and patience. it bodes well for what i think are the rigors and demands of service as secretary of state. since senator risch has taken us , ia guided tour of the jcpoa thought i would go back to an important point that you referenced in passing. i believe earlier today you said one of the failings of the deal is it does not deny iran the

ability to purchase a nuclear weapon. my very diligent staff has related me it mean that the nuclear nonproliferation treaty does prohibit the purchase of a nuclear weapon. but more importantly, the jcpoa, which i have, in provision three, the general provisions at the very front, says iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons. my general approach to this agreement has been distrust and verify. i could not agree with you more that iran's ongoing activities in the ballistic missile program, their human rights violations domestically, their support for terrorism in the region make them one of the most dangerous regimes in the world, and one that deserves close scrutiny. but i did not want us to move forward without some clarity that at least paper, at least the words on the page, do say they are committed to not acquiring a nuclear weapon. that was one of the positives about it, in addition to the inspection protocols.

mr. tillerson: senator, if i could correct for the record, i misspoke. during the break, i wanted to correct my source for that and confirm that i misspoke. in fact, their commitment to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty -- the language that was in there about acquire, some people quibble over, but their commitment to the npt was clear, and i misspoke in that regard. sen. coons: thank you, and i appreciate your comment in response to questions from senator merkley and others, about keeping a seat at the table through the paris agreement, and the general approach that that suggests. i believe that climate change is a major concern for us in the long term and the short term, and that it is human-caused, and there are actions we can and should take in response to it. as a trained chemist, i respect her training as an engineer, and would urge you to be attentive to the science, as it is fairly overwhelming on this point. i do think the jcpoa structure, the p5 plus one that brought it

into force and is enforcing it, ,nd the paris climate agreement are examples of tables where we should have a seat at the table and be advocates, and be driving it. i want to ask you about one other table that was literally designed with a seat for the united states, but still sits empty. there has been a number of questions and discussions today about the south china sea, and about china's aggressive actions in building islands. the u.n. convention on the law of the sea, decades ago, was advanced by a republican administration, but has still never been ratified by the senate. in june of 2012, you signed a letter indicating, in your role as ceo of exxon mobil, that you supported the senate's consent to the law of the sea. i was a member of the committee when then chairman john kerry convene seven hearings, where panel after panel of four-star admirals, generals, business leaders, national security leaders, and former republican

leaders, the administration, and senators testified in support of this, yet we fell short of ratification. had we ratified it, we would have that seat at the table to aggressively assert the international law of the sea, and to push back on china's actions. which during the debate were hypothetical. today, are real. would you work to support the law of the sea convention, if confirmed as secretary? mr. tillerson: i will certainly work with the president. we have not discussed that particular treaty. certainly, my position i have taken in the past is one from the perspective of the role i had at that time. i do take note of, and i do acknowledge, the concerns people have about subjecting any of our activities to international courts. and that is the principal objection that people have. ,ut when given the opportunity if given the opportunity to discuss this in the interagency or the national security

council, i am sure we will have a robust discussion about it. i do not know what the president's view is on it, and i do not want to get out ahead of him. sen. coons: let me ask about that, if i might. i came to this hearing with a whole list of questions. and in response to others, you have addressed many of them. where, in my view, you have a fromle difference of view at least some of the concerns, based on some campaign statements by the president-elect -- no ban on muslims. no nuclear arms race. no nukes for japan, south korea, or saudi arabia. no abandoning nato allies. no deal with russia to accept the annexation of crimea. stay engaged, potentially, in both the iran agreement and the paris climate treaty. all of these, to me, are quite encouraging. but they suggest some tension with statements made by the president-elect. how will you work through those differences? and just reassure me that you

will stand up to the president when you disagree on what is the right path forward, in terms of policy. mr. tillerson: i think early in the day, someone asked me a similar question, and i said that one of the reasons that i came to the conclusion, among many, to say yes to president-elect trump, when he asked me to do this, was in my conversations with him on the subject we have discussed, he has been very open and inviting of hearing my views, and respectful of those views. i do not think, in terms of discussing, or perhaps characterizing it, as my on himness to push back -- my sense is, we are going to have all the views presented on the table, and everyone will be given the opportunity to express those and make their case, and then the president will decide. and i am not trying to dodger question in any way, but this is one that, i do not know where the president may be, nor do i

know where some of the other agencies and departments that will have input on this will be, under the new administration. so i respect their rights to express their views, also. and, again, as you point out, i'm on the record having signed the letter from my prior position, in which i was representing different interests. when i hear all the arguments for myself, i do not want to -- to commit to you that my views might not change, if i hear different arguments. because i was looking at it only from a particular perspective. sen. coons: and a number of senators, myself included, have pressed you on making the transition from ceo of exxon mobil and its interest, and a 41 year career there, to represent america's interest. and i understand the concerns about sovereignty. having sat through the hearings and heard the testimony, i am convinced that the interests of the united states are best advanced by our seating to that treaty and ratifying it. i have more questions, but i will wait for the next round.

chairman: and we are beginning around now. senator cardin has deferred to senator menendez. only those who really have questions, i think, are going to be acknowledged at this time. however, anybody who wishes to come down can do so. it is going to be menendez, rubio, shaheen, cardin. merkley. sounds like a pretty full third round, and i'm glad everybody is interested. i admire your stamina. from my perspective, i hope you understand that while my questions might seem tough in some respects, i think my role in advising the senate of any nominee is really important. in your case, you have a unique background, coming to this job. try to understand, as the person who is going to be the chief advisor to the president-elect in that meeting you described, where everybody gets around the table -- it is going to be you. i try to get from the past gleaming of it, so i understand where your are going to be in

the future. aboute heard a lot proportionally different things in the world, but i think it is rewarding a regime when the only way you can do business in cuba is with castro's son or son-in-law. i had to monopolies inside of cuba and controlled tourism and everything hotel and tourism related, and everything agriculture related, which are the main areas people want to do business with in cuba. who are they? not only are they the son and son-in-law, that they are high-ranking officials of the cuban military. what do we do? when we allow business to take place with them, and we should do business with the average cuban, and empower them to make economic decisions that would free them in some respect, you strengthen what? they are high-ranking officials of the cuban military. you ultimately fund the very oppressive regime that you are trying to get them to change, in terms of human rights and democracy.

when you do your review, that is another element i would like you to take into consideration. let me ask you this. as you know, following up on sch's comments on iran, iran was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984, following its connection to the 1983 bombings of u.s. marine personnel in lebanon, a horrific event that killed two hundred 41 u.s. service persons. that label on iran has unfortunately not changed. this june, the state department, in its annual report on global terrorist activity, listed iran as the state sponsor of terrorism. iraneport indicated that in 2015 "provided a range of support, including financial training, equipment to terrorist groups around the world, including hezbollah." it has been brought to my attention that between 2003 and 2005, exxon mobil sold $53 million worth of chemicals and fuel additives to iranian customers.

alarmingly, exxon did not originally disclose this business with iran in its annual report with the s.e.c. in 2006. this mobil disclose information after receiving a letter from the fcc asking for donations. the securities and exchange commission asked exxon to explain these dealings, because iran at the time was "subject to export controls imposed on iran as a result of its actions in support of terrorism, and in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs." we know that your form 10k does not contain any disclosure about your operations in iran, syria, and sudan. exxon's response has been that the transactions were legal because infinium, a joint venture with shell, was based in europe, and the transaction did not involve any u.s. employees. in other words, this was clearly seen as a move designed to do business with iran, to evade

sanctions on iran. so i have a few questions for you, to the extent that you are familiar with this. as the customer at the end of the deal, can you ascertain that exxon was knowingly or unknowingly potentially funding terrorism? one of the customers in the sales to iran was the iranian national oil company, which is wholly owned by the iranian government. the treasury department of the united states has determined that that entity is an agent or affiliate of iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps. connection toain terrorist activities around the world, who pledge allegiance to iran supreme leader, the ayatollah. are the words, the irgc ayatollah's army. in fact, they are in syria right now, helping assad remain in power. and you tell the committee whether these business dealings with iran did not fund any

state-sponsored terrorism activities by iran? as iillerson: senator, indicated earlier, i do not recall the details or the circumstances around what you just described. the question would have to go to exxon mobil for them to be able to answer that. sen. menendez: you have no recollection of this as the ceo? mr. tillerson: i do not recall the details around it, no, sir. sen. menendez: this would be a pretty big undertaking to try to circumvent u.s. sanctions by using what may or may not -- i am not ready to make that determination -- a legal loophole to do so. it would be pretty significant. it would not come to your level? it would not come to your level that the securities and exchange commission raised questions with your company about lack of disclosure? mr. tillerson: that would happen. i am just saying i do not recall . 2006 would have been the first year that i would have been looking at those things, and i just do not recall this is all i

am saying. sen. menendez: do you recall whether exxon mobil was doing business with three different state sponsors of terrorism, including iran, in the first place? mr. tillerson: i do not recall. again, i would have to look back to refresh myself. sen. menendez: i would hope you would do so, and i would be willing to hear your response for the record, because i think it is important. regardless of moving to a is all mything, this sanctions feel -- i am trying to understand -- and this is an expression -- godless of whether or not you have read the bill that senator cardin and i and others have answered on a bipartisan basis -- have sponsored on a bipartisan basis, do you believe that additional sanctions on russia is in fact appropriate? some may be more useful than others. but do you believe that any additional actions in terms of sanctions on russia is appropriate for their actions? mr. tillerson: i would like to reserve my final judgment on that until i have been fully briefed on the most recent cyber events.

i have not had that briefing. and as i indicated, i like to be holy informed on decisions. sen. menendez: i appreciate that. , it ispublic forum pretty definitive, by all of the intelligence agencies, of what they did. scientist.ems to me i respect that. things will be good here is your response to that. >> when i know there are additional information in the facts, i would wait until i've seen all of the facts. if i know that there's nothing else to be learned then i could becauseetermination that is all we know. but there is a classified

portion of this report. and whenever he opportunity, i look forward to that. >> i have a final question. but i will wait for my next turn. for efficacy to prevail, please go on. so this characterizes my big question about you. an article appeared in time magazine. i want to hear your honest response. they want to see a whole new diplomacy, american one that stopped putting principles instead of profits. and treats russia as an equal. for the next four years, we can forget about values, a energy minister.

america is going to play the deal game under trump. and for pugin that is a comfortable environment. they have pieces available to presented while waiting the oil fills of the arctic.

if you conclude then that's the characterization of me than i have done a poor job of me today. because what i've hope to do is exchange on the questions. amoped to demonstrate that i a strong person. my beliefs.d in those believes are underpinned. by a duty tonned country, others and self. and that will guide my values. the way iguide represent the chance to do so. i understand full well the responsibilities and the seriousness of it. i don't view this as a game as

the article seems to imply. so i hope that today you know me better. there has been a response from exxon mobil that my staff gave me to the sudan and iran and syria issue. with that, senator rubio. see therubio: you can finish line from here, i think. i really just have four classifications. on the sanctions he, to build on what senator hernandez just , asking specifically about sanctions and those who itduct the cyber attack, said anyone who is guilty of cyber attacks against our and projector would be given sanctions. and your answer would be that

you wanted the flexibility. and not the language. because there are other factors to take into account such as trade and deciding whether or not to use a tool such as sanctions other than that. if you have specific actors? that may not be enough. so i want to know is there other things you would take into effect. rex tillerson: the way would to , sanctions are not a strategy, they are a tactic. if i could use any other country, that the sanctions would apply to, if we are going to engage on addressing a broad , i wouldserious issues

like to have this as a tool and a tactic. it is not available to me as a tactic. that comes to the conclusion that best serves america's interest. it is a powerful tool. i would like to real to use it tactically. senator rubio: he asked you if there is any kind of cooperation with iran. and does that require examination? clarify, does that mean you are open to working on issues with iran that we have in common?

such as fighting isis? the third question has to do with sanctions of crimea. senator rubio: i think your testimony was along the lines of saying we wouldn't do anything right away. and that potentially, there could be potentially an arrangement where the united states would recognize the annexation of crimea if it is accepted as part of a broad it deals to stability. is that an accurate representation of the testimony? tillerson: since that is territory that belongs to ukraine, they will have something to do with it in terms of the solution. ourmerely saying that it is

decision alone to decide. marco rubio: here's my latest observation. at the end of the last round, and alluding to human rights, is values.shared the same i want you to understand the purpose of the questions i asked you today. in your statement today, you use the term "moral clarity" because we have been missing that. why vladimir putin, you decline to label them as a war criminal. i asked about the killings in the philippines. i asked about saudi arabia and the in a human rights violator.

and the reason is not because i want to get you tagged in butrnational name-calling, we need clarity. we can't achieve moral clarity with ambiguity. you said you didn't want to label them because it would somehow hurt our chances to influence them and our relationship but here's the reality. if confirmed by the senate and state, the department of you have to label countries and individuals all the time. you're going to have to designate nations that are organizations of terror groups, and one thing that i think a lot of us care about is the trafficking of persons report. this concerns me. that theevidence

ranking system has been manipulated for political purposes. they upgraded malaysia because we are working with them and regent want to have a label out there. is important.y it you gave the need for more permission in order to comment on these. and believe me, i understand that. it is a world. but these are not obscure areas. thei can tell you that question i asked did not require any special information access that we had. the leaders, the state department, we are not going off news reports alone. point for your nomination has been that while you don't have experience in have traveledu the world extensively. you have relationships around theworld and you understand

world. but today i have been unable to get you to knowledge that attacks were conducted by russia. maybe that you are not prepared to label what is happening in china and saudi arabia, a country your quite aware of, women have no rights in that country and that is well documented. i want you to understand this. said this to you when we met. and no questions but your character. your patriotism. you don't need this job. you didn't campaign for this job. a month and a half ago, if someone said you are going to reappear, it seems like you would've like you would of said that's not true. sitting reason to be behind that table today is your love of service and i admire that. that when weld you met, the position you have been nominated to is the second most

role in government. with respect to the vice president. for the people in jail in china, the girls who want to drive and go to school, they look to the united states and to us and often to the secretary of state. and when they say that it is not enough to stand up and say yes, a warir putin is criminal, we deal with these countries because china is the second largest economy in the world and saudi arabia is a strategic partner and what is happening in the middle east. but the vista more lies is these people around the world. it hurt us during the cold war. beingg as it is not violated.

these questions, i ask these questions because i believe it is that important for the future of the world that america lead to now, more than ever. i thank you for your patience today. you for giving us additional time. i want to comment on senator rubio's statement. concern is that your values of this country can't be denied but many statements have been undercut by earlier statements of the president-elect. so are you deferring on answering questions because of concerns about statements that the president-elect has made?

so i will make that a rhetorical statement. you don't need to respond to that unless you would like to. i want to go back to nonproliferation. the five most recent presidents including obama, bush, clinton, bush and reagan have negotiated agreements with russia to ensure stability and to reduce nuclear stockpiles. i think you said earlier that you did support the most recent of the agreements. . and i want to go back to climate because i appreciate your

recognition about the science .nd your concern as an engineer i argue we have a lot of scientific evidence. we have university in new hampshire that produced a report in 2014 that pointed out the impact of climate change in new hampshire. and the new england region. and i won't read all of that but to that i thought were most alarming is that in the new england region, as a whole right now, the majority of our winter precipitation is rain and not snow which is having an economic on thein new hampshire ski industry and snowmobiling. and that by 2070, new hampshire will begin to look like north carolina so there are tremendous of locations about that.

as well as applications on the fauna and other things that affect the state. i do appreciate your comments about being at the table as we continue to negotiate. in 2009, the u.s. government agreed to -- fossil fuel subsidies. i believe that fossil fuels have conservative to climate change. and much of the responsibility on the agreement falls treasury department, the state department also has a role so i have a two-part question. the first is that at this time,

when -- are reaping good profits , doing it to continue the subsidies? and how does that help our international commitment to phase out the fossil fuel subsidies? ix tillerson: the first part, am happy to offer a personal view on even though that isn't within the state department role to make that judgment. this just comes from my understanding of how the various tax elements treat certain investments and research credits. i'm not aware of anything that fossil fuel industry gets that i would clear dress as a subsidy.

rather it is the application of the tax code, probably. ajax code that broadly applies to all the industry. and it is just the way to tax code applies to this industry. so i'm not sure what subsidies we are speaking of. other than if we eliminate whole sections of the tax code. i just say that as a broad observation. role,the state department in participating in summits and discussions around others taking action, it would be with that view in terms of how we are going to apply things at home. because i think the president-elect has made clear , the objectivews is his campaign of putting america first, is not going to

support anything that would put u.s. industry in a sector at a disadvantage to its competitors itside of the u.s., whether is automobile manufacturing or steel making or the oil and gas industry. so it would depend upon how the domestic part of that and how that decision is made by others with then informs the positions forwardould be carrying at the state department. >> i know you said earlier that you don't want to talk about tax reform, which i appreciate. the waye assume that the tax code is written, it provides additional subsidies, and i would argue that they are subsidies, two oil companies and the fossil fuel industry, should we, if we are going to comply with the 2009 agreement with e.g. 20, should we then think about, as we look at tax reform and rewriting the tax code, then

we change that aspect of the tax code in order to deal with our commitment to phase out those subsidies? >> i really have to defer to treasury and others who are going to undertake that exercise, as well as other agencies that will inform the state department view of how that compares to what others are doing to live up to their commitment to phase out the subsidies as well. so it is hard for me to make a judgment on whether i think we should do this until i know what the parallel is in the agreement that other countries are going to do as well. >> thank you. me thank senator corker for the time that has been allowed. i think there is another question or two we could yield back?

>> we spoke in my office about encountering extremism and we and the philippines that have been partners and allies of ours and were there recently turned away and have cracked down on civil society and press freedom in human rights. and here, we have to set aside human rights and civil liberties as the number one goal when our national security is at risk. and i wanted to ask you about to what extent you think reactions to the tail human rights and press freedom actually fuel or strengthen terrorist threat? in particular about nigeria where human rights violations might increase the risk of instability?

and what strategy do you follow to prevent partners like turkey and egypt and the philippines from sliding further away from sharing some of our core values in terms of democracy and him and rights? i certainly would take no exception to what he opposed. couldextent, human rights deteriorate or increase or did he extent that it exists. there is no question about that. time, it is going to take its effect in terms of the stability of the country. talkedink, as i have about these competing priorities and i made clear earlier that the most precious of human valleys that we advocate for our never absent. there never absent. be we're only going to trumped, so to speak, when there

are serious national security concerns. and if we are engaged with a partner today, and that is what i've talked about with people being partners or adversaries or friends or friends and partners. if we engage in an area where this relationship and what we are pursuing is in the national security interest, the values stay with us. but we may not be able to assert those values at this time. it doesn't mean they are gone. it doesn't mean we talk about it, and may not be in our interest to condition our national security pursuits on a country making certain commitments around oppression and human rights. these are the most difficult of choices. but i need to be very clear

about what the objective is. >> thank you. i have a few more questions. lgbtq rights are human rights. gay rights are human rights. and in a number of meetings with african heads of state, i've advocated for them to push back on actions where they have engaged in preventing people from meeting or advocating, where they have been physically abused or tortured. i will never forget being a my office with a woman from zimbabwe who had been given asylum in the united states after tortured because of who she loved. do you believe that gay rights are human rights? tillerson: american values don't advocate violence against anyone. that is part of the american values that we project. >> can i press you for a more specific answer?

encouragedon: i was by a top leadership moment at wanted toouts and i reassert that in my work around the world, although not always easy or comfortable, it is important that we include respect for the whole range of people's relations in our menu of how we define human rights. let me ask you about support for foreign assistance. and otherleezza rice former leaders introduce you agreed that diplomacy and development have to be equal to defense. and in our total budget it is 1% the0% of dod and state department. in you going to press, partnership with those of us in congress are committed to making for in a transparent, accountable and efficient, to

sustain our investment in diplomacy? quote jimson: two mattis, if the state department doesn't get the funding it needs, then i have to buy more ammunition. the resources are available to advance our foreign policy. and diplomacy goals. that is important and elevated to a level that even by the nominee and secretary has recognized. >> there are six noncareer ambassadors who have reached out to you. they are in allied countries. some of their visa rules, they can't stay on as private citizens for more than a few. they were hoping to real to stay through the end of the school year and accommodation for their families. i hope you will take that seriously.

in previous transitions, even in a difference with party administration, it has been considered on a case-by-case basis for clemency for family reasons to stay through the end of the school year and i hope you will consider that. certain peopleat have petitioned in front of you and i think there is a process that is underway. while i have been preparing for these hearings. i'm not been directly engaged in it. >> i would be grateful for any consideration. cited, question, as you there is a whole string of important presidential legacies around development and foreign assistance. the millennium challenge organization, i think that has been a terrific administration. and the future power of africa and the global health security issue. part of what has built a good agenda for us around the world is that the best ideas of

previous ministrations have been sustained. youngu familiar with the african leadership administration? it brings young africans to the united states for summer to meet with civil society leaders and elected leaders around the country, are you familiar with power africa? and with the global health security issue? -- are these thorn the sorts of things you will consider sustaining? >> i think all of those have proven to be valuable and successful programs. successfullook to programs and understand why they are successful and how they can ,e replicated in other areas perhaps addressing other issues so that we will advance. >> thank you for your testimony in front of the committee today. i appreciate the opportunity to hear your view and i look for to the opportunity to continue our work together.

>> since he has been busy in getting ready for this hearing, we did spend some time talking to the transition team about some of the ambassadors and others that have hardships. there has been something set up where they can petition even before he comes into office. so play some of that is being accommodated. i want to thank you for bringing that to my attention. >> thank you. president-elect trump has argued that the united states should, again, waterboard suspected terrorists. yesterday, jeff sessions said that would be illegal. and general mattis has said it would be ineffective. president-elect trump that torture in any form is illegal, immoral and ineffective? tillerson: i agree with what they said.

>> thank you. i think that is important. all -- one half of new electricity, which was installed was renewables. has announced that it is not going to invest $360 billion in renewable energy in its country. agreement climate that was reached in paris is driving much of this investment. but if the united states does not take advantage of this global market which is going to open up, it means that we lose jobs here in the united states. 300,000 people in the wind and solar industry in the united states and only 65,000: minors.

so this sector is growing and growing and the chinese clearly want the lions share of it. can we talk a little bit about how we see this energy revolution as a job creating engine for the united states, and as a way of dealing with the commitments which the united paris to thede an reduction of the greenhouse gases? think this is largely a trade issue. one of america's manufacturing investments and competitiveness. to the extent we can let free-market forces work, i would expect american companies to be competitive in participating in the growing market. but this will be subject to trade agreements or subject to a continuation of free and open suppliersupply to be a

for the countries that are installing the significant capacity. there has been significant capacity already in the u.s. but as you point out, there is a growing market out there as a result of the agreement. so i think it is a question for the private sector of working with the administration and the commerce department about ensuring that there is no trade obstacle to their ability to participate, should they choose to do so. >> you recorded a few years ago as saying "energy made in asrica is not as important energy simply made. wherever it is most economic in from this" lookttee's perspective, we at the foreign policy of the united states and we feel a great responsibility to the metta and women who we export over to the middle east to defend our country.

keephese ships of oil that going back into the united states and we are still importing 5 million barrels of oil a day. meaning that we don't have it here but we continue to import it. can you talk about this view that you have? that an american-made barrel of oil is no different than a barrel of oil made overseas? from our perspective, the issue of importation of oil ties us into policies and regions of the country that we would otherwise never really have to give the weight of importance to that we now do just because of the fact that they have oil. rex tillerson: i think the context in which that statement was that anything that puts more supply on the global market means the global market

is less dependent on any single source. so a greater diversity of supply, and i think it probably was made in the context of promoting america fully developing our own natural resources and america being willing to put it supply into the global market as well. so it was just an observation to the extent that he would have more supply for more sources. what have a more stable market. less reliance on any particular part of the world. >> and i understand that from an exxon mobil corporate perspective, that a barrel of oil is a aryl of oil wherever it is produced in the world. hand, let meher have this issue of the impact which importation of oil has on the united states, which you agree that it is in america's best interest that we reduce consumption of foreign oil? so then we are not dependent of oil,t extra barrel

wherever it is being produced in the world? rex tillerson: you're getting into areas of other agencies but i make the observation that anything we did to prohibit the availability of supplies to the united states would, in all likelihood, but the u.s. at a competitive disadvantage. where we import oil from, where it comes into the country from saudi arabia and other countries in the mideast and implicates ouren foreign policy. attitude or whoever is the secretary of state's attitude to that country. to the question of, should we reduce the demand for oil so that it increases the leverage of the secretary of state? when you talk to the leaders of the country?

because we are them we don't need their oil. tillerson: i would not agree with that conclusion. >> how would you describe our need to import oil and allowing that country to have that as one of the discussion points as you sit there with them? rex tillerson: once a barrel of oil is loaded on a tanker, a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil. the end consumer doesn't care where the barrel of oil came from because it is going to be priced in a global market. as long as they have free access to the barrels and they have the ability to shop around, that is what is most supportive of their economic activity. >> but we are not just talking about economic trinity. we are talking about the impact of the barrel of oil coming in from saudi arabia or another country has upon the leverage over any discussion

that the united states is having with that country about other issues and it is on the table, even as we ask them to give us help in other areas. so i'm not just talking about what the global price of oil may be. i'm talking about where the oil comes from. comes from at country that we don't want to allow them to use oil as a leveragepoint, that is the secretary of state will have in telling them, we don't need you. we don't need your oil to run our country. we are energy independent. so again, do you think this should be our goal. should the barrels of oil that we are importing should be something that we try to keep in the economic system? tillerson: i am never supported energy independence, i support energy security, our largest supplier of oil is canada.

and i'll think we feel hostage to them. >> i appreciate that. but i appreciate the fact that we are still importing from saudi arabia and other countries in the middle east. and i do feel that it is unnecessary if we could develop our capacity within our own country. to be able to develop oil. canada is one thing and saudi arabia is another thing altogether. and i don't think a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil because i think it has a real consequences in this country that has a strategic vulnerability that could be bolstered by the fact that we need oil. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. korea, weto north have had a lot of concerns about their long-term expansion of the missile program and missiles getting more and more range.

down a lineca put in terms of them testing long-range missiles? and if they violent the line, what should the u.s. do? i think the u.n. resolutions have already put down hard lines. and north korea continues to violate them, both in terms of conducting nuclear test as well as conducting launches of delivery systems as well. so we really are any past that. >> my context question was in terms of whether the u.s. should lay down a line. because our security is more and more endangered as the range gets longer. i take your answer to be one way of saying no, there is probably nothing we can do? rex tillerson: you shouldn't take my answer in that regard at all. with ourour closely

allies in japan and south korea because anything we do will certainly have a profound impact on them. and anything we might consider as far as alternatives would require careful conversation at the national security council in our capabilities, which we certainly have. we have capabilities to bring a missile test down but how and what might be the consequences of that will require careful thought. ani'm not rejecting that as option. i'm just not prepared to sign up for it today. >> fair enough. utilizingia has been cluster conditions in yemen, much of the world has said that these are terrible weapons to use because they have a range of fuses and they can go off months or years after they have been laid down.

larry also been targeting civilians. how should we respond to those actions? rex tillerson: i would hope that we could work with saudi arabia by providing them better targeting capability. avoid mistakenly identifying targets of where civilians are. hopeis a scenario where the cooperation with them could minimize this type of collateral damage. >> how about on the cluster side? how about in regard to the use of clusters? tillerson: i would have to examine what our past policy has been. of wet want to get ahead have made commitments in this area. >> and think this is an example of what my colic was pointing

to. tohave often been reluctant put pressure on states that we are dependent in oil with situations of states or we are not dependent in oil. so there can be a shadow cost. a shadow cost on the import of oil, because of the apparatus , five dollars-$10 a barrel. where thes distinction is. i don't need you to respond to that. but i wanted to amplify his point that for many of us, there is a significant difference between an important calendar and a domestic gallon. to the senator who brought this up earlier today about the corruption of the leadership of that particular country. -- has become

exceedingly rich and part of the way he has become exceedingly rich is the payments that exxon themade, they have gone to family accounts rather than the national treasury. why are your thoughts on exxon participated in that? time ofinued in the when you were in the leadership of the company? rex tillerson: am familiar with the circumstance. it was the subject of an investigation of the judiciary committee but there were no findings that we done anything .rong the payments that we would make to any company, there

are domestic producers here on federal lands. there are royalties and taxes paid to the treasury. but the government does with is after the government. the u.s. government distributes that responsibly. some countries do not. mobil -- on the whole, there are positive benefits to people of the country. in terms of job creation. i'm not suggesting it works a mitigation of the country but it is not without benefit or having american values on the ground.

this is not just the industry's portion but any portion. >> you mentioned that royalties and taxes should go to the government but in this case, exxon mobil made the payments to a private account controlled by the president. do you see anything wrong with that? tillerson: i would have to review for my memory the circumstance you are talking about. that theection is account was designated as the government's account. and i think it was discovered that the account was closed. >> there are a number of contracts that exxon did with companies controlled by the by a series of

other contracts. and that translated in wealth to a president for life. someone who has no interest in democratic and symbols. the state government has .eported on this in 2003, there was little evidence that the government used the wealth for the country's good. it is in the hands of the top government officials. the majority of the population remains poor. there is foreign assistance that was cut because of the corruption of this family. it ties into earlier when one of my colleagues mentioned a situation where there was a series of expensive sports cars being loaded onto a plane to be flown into editorial the getty by they were being paid for

.iverted a moralink it raises question about how this engages a country and how it increases the power of how we're doing nothing to elevate the quality of life of the citizens. do you share any of that perspective? rex tillerson: my recollection is that in all these examples, they were investigated and there were no violations of law. mobil took the position of very serious drug policies act. and they have policies in place to ensure that corporations and employees remain in full compliance. -- any dissected

suspected violation was investigated and the process would have designated a resolution. it required a self-reported process. so i think it corporation had strong procedures in place to ensure compliance. giving, iyou are understand the concern you are expressing, but that indicated that the process to ensure there andno violation did perform withstood the investigation. >> am going to conclude with a thought about this. in the course of this spent theon, you have whole day answering our questions and i appreciate that very much. and i appreciate your willingness to serve. the process of vetting and the senate is a challenging one. and you have appeared with dignity.

i do have remaining concerns from some of the conversations from today. raised ther shaheen question of national amnesty for muslims, you noted that you need a more information. to me, i'm somewhat disturbed. because we are a nation founded on religious freedom. and can i complete my sentence? my statement? it is not a paragraph. when senator romeo asked about the president of the philippine slaughtering thousands of people, you said you need more permission. to me, there is a moral convention of that. and when i raised the issue of bypassing sanctions and helping iran, there is a moral issue with that. came to my office and the first thing you said was, i want

moral clarity to be the foundation of u.s. policy. i agree with that but i'm not sure we hearing that in these particular incidents. >> thank you. consent to ask the put a statement in the record. i'm not going to be asking any questions. but in regards to the issues of iansparency and corruption, want to comment on the conversations we had in the office. and i appreciate this conversations we had. we talked about the trafficking of persons report and the commitment to end modern-day slavery and how effective it was to have direct goals so countries knew how to make advancements. so there was a clear path forward. issa just of legislation that would do that for fighting corruption and i look forward, if you are confirmed, to work with you as to how we can advance a more effective way to the international

community can judge progress of fighting corruption. because every country has a problem and many times during this hearing was pointed out that there are countries that are very challenged and you look for certain standards, as you did as a business person to do business in the country and the united states should lead the world in developing those standards on corruption. we also talked about transparency in industries and i appreciate your candor there has to the usefulness of that to make sure that resources get to people. i do make a quick comment. about the role of congress. we are pretty strong about the role to confirm and ratify treaties. you have talked firmly about complying with our laws in regards to cuba. and you then talked firmly about having enforceable sanctions. i would just point out that while we do mandatory sanctions,

it makes it much more likely we will have strong enforcement. so i just point that out. and they'll be could work together on that. and i went to acknowledge another role that i play. i am the ranking democrat on the helsinki commission. it is a commission that deals not just with human rights but it is known for the human rights. it also deals with the security and economic issues. and we look for to working with you if you are confirmed to advance the congressional role in dealing with the osce to help the commission. we will be asking you additional questions for the record. i have not had a chance to ask questions on refugees so there are others who will ask. senator gardner and i will ask you questions with regards to burma. we have serious issues about the

human rights progress being made in burma. but who will ask those questions for the record. i want to thank you to being responsive to our questions today. and thank you for being willing to put up with such a long day. i was commenting about an hour limits onssed a new the overtime rules that were doubted by the department of labor. so i think we are all entitled to extra pay for the length of today's hearings. they give her much for your attention. >> again, i want to thank you for being in the postelection environment and making sure that this hearing came off in the land of their today. and i want to thank the committee members for the way that they conducted themselves and as they always do and the fact that we stayed at a very high level. i want to thank the nominee for being a today and i would like to make an observation. i have been here 10 years. i don't know how to hearings and

briefings i've been to with people in my office. we take in a tremendous amount of information here. it is very hard to replicate that. back home when i talk to people, i discussed the fact that being a united states senator is much like getting a phd on a daily basis, just because of the information flow that we have and the access to intelligence and the access to really its staffers who are constantly in us, 20 47, with a rates. we i would like to say that have a man who has come in from the private sector who has spent all my things was notified he was selected less than a month ago for this job. and the happing comments about clarity. as i've mentioned, i have been here for 10 years. i have seen secretaries of state to have come before our committee who have been around

for 30 years and when they take a bookns, they have that's open and paragraphs written to answer those questions. i think if you look at what a seven today, i don't think there have been any notes referred to. so to some of my friends on both sides of the aisle, that may talk about clarity, which i do respect and actually think almost every senator here did an outstanding job today. but i'll say it will take into account that we have a person who has been wafted in from a totally different world. who has arrived and you has been through briefings and you has been through boards and every single member of the committee and who has sat here today, excepting a 45 minute break for nine hours and answered

questions without any notes. i will leave the record open until the close of business tomorrow for people to continue to ask questions. i know that rex tillerson had planned to be here tomorrow in front of us, all day if necessary. and i would urge those who may have had questions about clarity to remember something and then maybe do something. develop strong opinions. and sometimes we express those opinions in a very crisp, direct, strong manner, just to break through the clutter that we had deal with to make a point. and yearse had years of input. so we develop strong opinions about what is happening in china as it relates to human rights many of us have been to

refugee camps and we have seen photos of what is happening in prison camps and what president assad has done to his own people so it evokes a clarity of how we feel about what has happened on the ground. a nominee coming in, on the other hand, wants to make sure that he is in getting out over his skis. he is working for a president that he doesn't know that well that he is trying to accommodate the fact that in fact, he will be working in an interagency to come to conclusions. so i just hope that those things will be taken into account if there are questions about clarity. rex tillerson is an eagle scout. a person who has lived an exemplary life. here is that the same company for 41.5 years. and again, he has handled himself in a great manner.

so the thing now, if their questions are clarity out there, contact us at contact the transition team. sit down inunity to front of people and discuss these things. especially in person, with a media isn't there and every single question is going to be written about in multiple ways. and let's really think about this. this is a very important decision. we have a president-elect who is withoutnto office also a great deal of background and for him to have two have some informed policy and plan to have someone who he has confidence in and u.s. demonstrated that he is very much in the mainstream of foreign-policy thinking, but for him to have someone who he has confidence in who is helping him

shape his views, is something that is very important. and my sense is that quickly on these issues of clarity, the nominee, when exposed to what is happening in the way that all of us have been will, in fact develop the clarity. so i thank you for your time. and the meeting is adjourned.

will have livean coverage of president-elect trump's cabinet hearings. tomorrow the hearing for retired general james mattis, and the nominee for defense secretary.

coverage begins at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span three, c-span.org, and the c-span radio lab. heldent elect donald trump his first news conference such july 2016 and winning the presidential election. this is just over an hour. [applause] youident-elect trump: thank very much. it is very familiar territory, news conferences. won the nomination because of news conferences. we stopped giving them because we were getting an accurate news. to thinky that i want a lot of the news organizations here today because they looked at the nonsense that was released